You can be talking to someone and she'll be like, "Oh I made a silly mistake. Women don't deserve voting rights teehee." And you'll be like, "What." And she'll be like, "Oh I'm sorry! That must sound so bad out of context. No it's this Tiktok meme where, if you're a girl and you do something dumb, you say 'Women don't deserve voting rights teehee.'"
And you'll be like, "That sounds bad." And she'll be like, "No no. It's totally not that bad. It's just a meme. Men say it too. Like if a man does something silly he'll be like, 'I am like those women who do not deserve to vote.'" And you'll be like, "Does that make it better?" And she'll be like, "Well there was one guy who tried to make 'Men shouldn't vote' a popular meme. But it never caught on and also he got yelled at a lot."
And then you drop it there because like, you're harshing the vibe.
This is not just minimizing women as people. It’s far more dangerous. What they’re doing is putting a spin to the narrative. It’s moving the Overton window on what we see as culturally appropriate. It’s writing the story into our collective consciousness that women don’t deserve to vote. It feels just silly but it’s not just silly it’s very very real. This is how they move what we think of as possible - long term. Like very long term. Don’t fall for it. Push back against it. It’s all we can do.
“average person eats 3 spiders a year” factoid actualy just statistical error. average person eats 0 spiders per year. Spiders Georg, who lives in cave & eats over 10,000 each day, is an outlier adn should not have been counted
This reminds me of Morris Louis’s work the way the paint seems to melt into the wall/canvas. This is Beta delta, painted in 1961. I took this at the national gallery in DC.
Did a bit of a deep dive here because I am so angry at having "learned" this "statistic" YEARS after the paper was retracted (when it only existed for SIX MONTHS before it was retracted!!) and because reading retracted papers is fun science schadenfreude (seriously, check out the vaccines and autism one, it's awful, bring popcorn)
tl;dr
I believe the authors when they say it was an accidental error
The error was DUMB AS SH*T though and someone somewhere should have caught it
My faith in humanity('s ability to read a table with its brain on) is shaken
My faith in humanity('s loyalty to its sick spouses) is restored
This study doesn't have enough actual data to say anything about anything really
So reddit op was a bit misleading about what actually happened. This wasn't like a single page questionnaire that was just "1. Was your wife sick? 2. Did you divorce her?" and the problem didn't just affect the men.
This was a big huge public dataset which followed older married couples with a big huge survey on a billion things every 2 years for 18 years, then made the data available for people to analyze how they want.
These authors looked at how new health problems relate to later marriage outcomes. The outcomes being "still married," "divorced," "widowed," and "attrition" (=dropped out of the study before year 18)
PROBLEM IS they f*cked up the line of code that assigned couples to outcomes, and the "dropped out of the study" group got merged with the "divorced" group.
Friends. Do you have any idea how many people don't make it back for every single timepoint of an 18 YEAR LONG STUDY?
A LOT MORE THAN ACTUALLY GET DIVORCED
So most of the "divorces" in the original didn't actually happen, and the fake-divorce RNG happened to hit the sick-wife group hardest.
An honest mistake I'm sure, and the authors themselves were the ones who asked to retract the study (and republish their now-negative results) when they realized. So probably not malicious.
But this ALSO means that at least two authors, an editor, and 2-3 reviewers looked at a table that starts like THIS
And said "yeah less than 1% attrition seems right"
Like. like. We haven't even gotten to your gender biases yet.
You are looking at a result that says that, out of 2700 COUPLES, the study lost track of LESS THAN 27 OF THEM over the course of 18 YEARS.
And you're not going "hm that contradicts some basic things I know about humans"
Christ guys, I can't even keep a DnD group together for a year, and you're saying 99%+ of everyone turned in a survey every two years for EIGHTEEN YEARS? I don't believe you. YOU shouldn't believe you. You could have avoided this by just asking where all the dropout couples went.
Anyway, when you fix this the overall divorce rate is 6%.
You will notice that this is way the hell smaller than the widowhood rate of 24%. Four of every five marriages that ended during this study ended with a death, not a divorce. Way less bleak than the original!
And now they're left with 161 divorces, total, and are still trying to divide that into smaller groups to see changes in the rate for each group.
Unsurprisingly, they see nothing of note. The ONLY conclusions I actually trust in the corrected version of the paper are
The majority of 50+ year olds stay married for life
If illness in general affects divorce, the effect is too small to see here (or to matter in the real world. Divorce rate of 6% if both are healthy and 6-7% if one is sick? That's noise, baby!)
Husbands get sick more than wives (...in a population where the husband is more often the older spouse)
Life-threatening illness increases your risk of death
Being old increases your risk of death
Being "somewhat dissatisfied" or "very dissatisfied" with your marriage increases your risk of divorce
Groundbreaking.
They saw no gender difference in disease affecting divorce rates. They go on about how maybe the wife's heart disease specifically is correlated with divorce, but I'm pretty sure that's just us watching a researcher go through the stages of grief in a discussion section. Let it go, man. How many wife-heart-disease-divorce cases did you even have. 10 or something? You can't see a 2% change in 10 divorces, I don't care what false positive stats result you're clinging to.
It IS true that being on here gives you a tumblr accent. This morning my mother asked me something and i replied "i don't know i've never heard these words in that order" and she nearly choked laughing. It wasn't even that funny
at my old job i had a coworker who was tired and made a coffee with like 6 or 8 shots of espresso and i just casually went up to them like “are you trying to meet god?” and not only was this absolutely hilarious to them but they brought it up in future conversations they thought it was so funny but to me this was just as casual as saying “woah that’s a lot of coffee”
Being funny on Tumblr and then going to be funny in real life is like traveling to a foreign country and baby the currency exchange rate is biased in your favor
co worker bought three redbulls and I said "oh you never want to have a three redbull kinda day" and i genuinly think it's the funniest thing she ever heard in her life. it's been months and she still says that, "its a three redbull kinda day". she calls me the funniest person she knows and either she has never met anyone else who uses tumblr or I truly got autism swag
romaincrisis
izzy806
2087
prguitarman
dailybridgerton
pixelskylines
andulkaphoto
theartofmadeline
kianamaiart
