How do you explain the very high divorce rate in societies with non-arranged marriages then? Should such societies not have a very high success rate, since the individuals make their own choices?
It's my theory that in arranged-marriage lands, there's more social support; the husband and wife play slotted roles, more, in a larger social millieu. In the West, the couple is on their own more, they're each other's /everything/. The demand on each is higher, the fit has to be better.
You're right, but at the same time you are not directly addressing the question: Societies where marriages are based of 'love' have a very high divorce rate. Divorce in America or Europe is not easy, it's a long and expensive process. But there is still a 50% or so divorce rate.
What the question really boils down to is this: Are people happier in general in societies with predominantly arranged marriages or in societies with love marriages. It would be great if we had this dataset directly, but without the data, we can say that about 1/2 of every marriage in non-arranged cultures end up so unhappy that they break up. We do not have corresponding data for societies with arranged marriages if what you say is taken into account.
But in general, if so many of these non-arranged marriages are dissolving, it seems to show to me that simply letting the young people choose without any vetting process is not leading to good results. A 50% failure rate is not acceptable.
Your argumentation bypasses the fundamental issue.
It's funny that none of the replies here seriously address the issue of happiness in arranged vs. non-arranged marriage face-on. I'm inclined to believe that there is an inherent bias against arranged marriage to begin with and so certain angles of reasoning are simply not considered.
I will say, very frankly, that I believe arranged marriages have the ability to make marriages, on average, more happy. Before any of the free-choice fanatics decry this, here is why that does not work here: happiness is purely perception. If you change the parameters of the environment, the equation for happiness does not remain the same, as in, more freedom does NOT imply more happiness as many people would like to believe.
If you are starving, anything edible tastes good. If you are a slave since birth, any reward is enjoyable. If you are resigned to an arranged marriage, you are less aware of the pains of opportunity costs, therefore it is very plausible that you try to make the best of the marriage.
> Societies where marriages are based of 'love' have a very high divorce rate. Divorce in America or Europe is not easy, it's a long and expensive process. But there is still a 50% or so divorce rate.
Since those exact same societies had a low divorce rate not too long ago, it's unreasonable to blame the high divorce rate on what didn't change between then and now (love-based) and ignore what did change (ease of getting a divorce and stigma).
Yes, US divorce is expensive and can be long, but it is also socially accepted and easy to start. The latter is more relevant than the length and expense of the process because said process keeps itself moving. (The expense and length is also a choice - the choice to fight, which has nothing to do with "ease of divorce" or love vs arranged.)
Nearly half of marriages fail, but not half of all first marriages. A simple example to illustrate: consider a sample of 4 happily married men and one guy with 4 ex wives. Half of the marriages failed, but 4/5 guys are happily married.
If you want to avoid divorce, don't marry a divorcee.
Incidentally, while divorce == FAIL, unhappy marriage == EPIC FAIL. But I guess the latter is hard to measure, so lets just focus on the former.
In any case, what you see as a "failure rate" I see as a correction. Defining every marriage that ends before death as a "failure" is a statement full of personal bias.
Does the person who after a year of marriage discovers that the institution isn't for him fail because he gets divorced? Has the wife who gets divorced because her husband beats her nightly failed in some way?
Applying engineering terms and analysis techniques to human relationships is a horse that's lost before he even got out of the gate. We're people, not robots!
"Divorce in America or Europe is not easy, it's a long and expensive process."
That depends strongly on jurisdiction and the particulars of the divorce. I had a mutually-agreed divorce last year, and it only took a coupla months, and was less than $1K. The legal and financial part of the divorce were by far the easiest parts of it.
Well, you're using data that doesn't reduce to what you want it to.
Divorce is only one possible indicator of unhappiness, there are lots of people who are unhappy and do not or cannot divorce.
You also assume that divorce leads to decreased happiness overall and I'm not convinced that's true either.
Moreover, I think it's pretty remarkable that almost 50% of people make a "successful" choice of a life partner. (Exclusively in the sense that they do not divorce.)
Considering how horrible people are at decisionmaking in general, and how vague and slippery the idea of "happiness" is, (see Stumbling on Happiness, and/or Mistakes Were Made for a great layman's overview), it's pretty remarkable... or merely a great indicator of how much people are willing to withstand/fool themselves/constrain their nature.
Lots of women (and thus men) live in countries where they are unable to divorce, or able to divorce in only a few very specific and constrainted circumstances... otherwise, tough shit.
And if you want to think about "tough," think about Syria, where apparently the man has legal guardianship of children post-divorce no matter what, even if the kids live with their mother, she cannot make any decision about their lives (such as which doctor to see).
