Divorce rates .... BS statistics ?

Trekbiker · 2016-01-28T19:00:29+00:00

I can confirm the engineer divorce rate at well below 50%, 10% sounds about right, pretty sure it is below 20% based on my experience/observations. I just retired from a 30 year engineering career. I worked with hundreds over that time period and very few ended up divorced. They also did not marry 8,9,10's. they usually married educated 5,6,7's. Almost all of them had kids, ALL their kids were destined for college, professional careers, etc. Most engineers are as solid blue pill as they come (not myself however, never married, no kids, dated mostly 7,8,9's and realized first hand that the more attractive the woman, the more unstable, un-marriable they are)

2016-01-28T17:08:37+00:00

| ..."the highest divorce rates are for dancers, bartenders, and massage therapists, all around 40%"

No surprise there. Twats dominate those jobs.

And lets do some translation to what those job titles really mean:

Dancer=Stripper/whore

Bartender=hooters barback/whore

Massage therapist: Happy ending prostitute/whore

thrownaway_MGTOW · 2016-01-28T21:22:07+00:00

Is the method of making these statistics just plain wrong ?

Almost certainly.

Here's the abstract of the so called "study":

It is a common belief that the divorce rate for police officers is higher than that of the general population. This belief is commonly held in spite of the fact that there is no empirical research supporting such a belief. To compare the divorce rate of law enforcement personnel with the rates for other occupations, we analyzed data from the 2000 U.S. Census. The results of this analysis indicate that the divorce rate for law enforcement personnel is lower than that of the general population, even after controlling for demographic and other job-related variables.

That is such a flawed methodology, I don't know where to start, but here goes:

When it comes to "married" versus "divorced" statistics, the census is NOT a good data source. It's a "snapshot" of single instance data. That is to say it can only identify whether someone's marital status was (at the time of the census survey) "Never Married" or "Married" or "Widowed/Divorced/Separated" -- other than the "Never Married" there is no tracking of PRIOR marital status, "Previously Divorced and Remarried". Which tells you pretty much ZILCH about anyone's "lifetime" rate of divorce. (Note: IF the census did track "ever divorced", and one assumed that both the rate was steady across one's life, AND that the population was equally distributed through the adult age groups -- even then you would need to adjust, and probably at least DOUBLE the rate that came from the data.)
It utterly ignores that people change professions -- this isn't 1750 and people aren't "serfs" locked into a single profession; hell it's not even 1950 or 1970 when people could be expected to stay at some "corporate job" for an entire multiple decade career -- these days, people change professions like they change underwear. (And that's especially true of the category they are ostensibly validating; the "average" career length of "law enforcement personnel" {especially when both genders are included} is apparently ~5 years*; moreover that is the aggregate average not the median it's highly skewed by the guys who stay in it for 20 to 30 years {i.e. take a group of say 5 police officers, 1 has a career that spans 20 years, and the other four have "short" careers of 1, 2, 3 & 4 years respectively -- that would total up to 30 years of collected service; divide by 5 people and you end up with an "average" of 6 years, despite the fact that the "average" for 80% of the group is a mere ~2,5 years}... the point being that by the year of the "study" {2010} the majority of the people identified as "law enforcement personnel" in the 2000 census would no longer be working as police.)
Worse yet, the census' definition of "married" is rather "fuzzy" people had multiple choices in how they could respond regarding "cohabiting" adult partners.

* You have to be careful when digging up that data (i.e. police "career" length). Apparently just like they fudge the data on police as "victims" of crime and "deaths** in the line of duty", etc.the police unions like to play somewhat fast & loose with the data munging, and they discount/delete the police that don't make it past the 5 year mark (the majority), so they end up with an average career length only for "career" officers of 20 to 25 years.

** The majority of these are a result of vehicle accidents, and/or when it comes to firearms, mostly self-inflicted or "friendly fire" (i.e. they shoot themselves/each other, either accidentally or on purpose).

mrp_1844 · 2016-01-28T16:21:17+00:00

Farmers and ranchers 7.63

I believe that one.

PM_YOUR_TRIGGERS · 2016-01-28T16:11:34+00:00

You can't judge statistics based on your own experience. It takes a lot of people to make numbers actually mean anything. Of course, they still may be bullshit.

Pacifist11 · 2016-01-28T16:29:16+00:00

Saw a graph showing how the rate of divorce (per 1000 people) was going down. So less divorce, things must be looking up.

The article never mentioned how the rate of marriage (per 1000 people) was going down even faster.

Title	Divorce rates .... BS statistics ?
Author	gundahir
Upvotes	5
Comments	9
Date	January 28, 2016 3:56 PM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MGTOW
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MGTOW/comments/433v3d/divorce_rates_bs_statistics/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MGTOW/divorce-rates-bs-statistics.638697 https://theredarchive.com/post/638697

Comments