11/6/2002: 85th anniversary couple - Page 2

11-07-2002, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by juju
The average person changes completely every 20 years or so.

I'm going to call you on this. I'd like to see your sources and scientific backup.

juju · 11-07-2002, 11:55 AM

Hmm. It was taught in my General Psychology class a few years ago. I no longer have the book, so i can't cite an immediate reference. I don't mean to say it's an immutable law by any means. Just a guideline. Are YOU the same person you were twenty years ago?

11-07-2002, 12:02 PM

No, but do I fit your scientific criteria as having "changed completely"? Probably not. And I probably won't "change completely" over the next 20 years either.

I have a hard time believing more than 50% of people "change completely" every twenty years, as you suggest. And I'd just like to see some evidence that this is more than wild speculation by some nutball professor.

juju · 11-07-2002, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by snagglefish
what is an 'average' person?
what is 'complete' change every 20 years?

I just mean that life experience changes a person. I think your personality is built on your experiences. After a person has accrued a certain amount of experiences, it's safe to say that they're very different than they were before. 'Complete' and '20 years' were probably poorly chosen words.

juju · 11-07-2002, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dave
No, but do I fit your scientific criteria as having "changed completely"? Probably not. And I probably won't "change completely" over the next 20 years either.

I didn't mean to suggest that I was using scientific criteria. I haven't done any research at all. It's just a phrase I picked up from the class that seemed to jibe with my own personal experiences. I didn't really mean for my language to be 'exacting'. I'm just speaking in general terms.

jeni · 11-07-2002, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Contant yelling and a mood of bitterness, anger, and chaos is what the household will most likely be like forever if the parents stay together.

those parents that fight with their children in earshot are just the people i am talking about. divorce is traumatizing for children, just as seeing their parents fight is. trust me, i've been through that. my parents did NOT fight around my brother and i. if anything they would bicker about normal things, like dessert or television. but they did not yell and scream back and forth. unless i've completely blocked that out...my parents did argue and fight, but they made sure to hold off until dave and i were not around. when they separated, i was devastated. i did not show it for quite some time, but i would cry a lot because of it. i missed my dad, i missed living away from him, and i missed eating together as a family. i still miss all of this stuff and while i believe my parents have a better reason for separating than most people, i still think it's stupid and i regret that it had to happen that way. it leaves a person without a true sense of belonging. at least it left me that way. i know that my parents care for each other, and they get along fine as friends now. and i know that they love me, but it totally ripped me apart when i was little. that was the divorce, not the fighting.

jeni · 11-07-2002, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Are YOU the same person you were twenty years ago?

no, because he was one year old at the time.

Undertoad · 11-07-2002, 01:10 PM

I'm guessing we'll get more insight about "different every 20 years" from those who are over 40?

I'm old enough to know I'm not old enough to know.

11-07-2002, 01:21 PM

Well, they fought around me all the time. I don't recall whether or not you were around, but I definitely was. Dad was an ass and mom was too. Just the way it goes, I guess. Neither of them ever wanted to defuse the situation, so it would always escalate. I don't think mom really ever had any intention of making it work anyway. She admitted to me once that she married dad "to get out of Oakland". Which is kinda shitty. And sort of the thing we're talking about here.

henry fitch · 11-07-2002, 04:48 PM

I'm gonna try and parse this a bit. In the Bad Old Days, marriages lasted a long time because women had been trained to ignore grievances (sp?) or they would be beaten? That divorce is more common now because women are no longer physically compelled to remain married? That if a woman decides to live with something that bothers her about her husband, for the sake of the marriage, it's probably because she's been oppressed by years of violence into thinking she has to?

Though I can't back this up by facts, I imagine a significant number of divorces are initiated by men. Even more unscientifically, I would like to put forward that men have frequently put up with shit from their wives without divorcing them. Is this because men have been beaten by their wives in the past? Doubt it. Although, they do say that 52% of spousal abuse victims are men...

I'm not trying to flame you, Juju, just trying to better understand what you're saying.

perth · 11-07-2002, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Although, they do say that 52% of spousal abuse victims are men...

whos 'they'? while im not informed enough to disagree right out, i find it suspicious. one thing ive noticed around here is that you cant throw numbers like that around without backing it up.

~james

henry fitch · 11-07-2002, 06:00 PM

Okay, I admit it, "they" is a couple of random Internet people I've since forgotten. Thought I could get away with it since it wasn't really related to my main point. Shoulda known better

Anyhow, I can't find anything that directly references the 52% statistic, but here's a couple of related links: a reasonable-seeming FAQ with a bibliography, an iFeminist article with quotes and statistics, and a compelling but somewhat florid Salon.com feature.

This is quite a bit off-topic. If anybody wants to discuss it further, perhaps a thread in some other forum is in order?

EDIT: found the link for the Salon article

juju · 11-07-2002, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by henry fitch
Though I can't back this up by facts, I imagine a significant number of divorces are initiated by men. Even more unscientifically, I would like to put forward that men have frequently put up with shit from their wives without divorcing them. Is this because men have been beaten by their wives in the past? Doubt it. Although, they do say that 52% of spousal abuse victims are men...

I'm not trying to flame you, Juju, just trying to better understand what you're saying.

Well, first, I didn't really eat very well today. So I imagine my mind has just been very muddled. It's funny.. when i'm in this state, I often feel like I'm making perfect sense. "These posts are gold!" I'll say to myself. Heh heh. Then i'll read it the next day and just be really confused. Hmm... OTOH, maybe that is just my natural state?

With that said, you do make a very good point. I'm not sure how that would fit into my theory. Certainly the stigma against divorce is much less that it was in the 50's, so most men probably feel like they won't be ostracised in the community if they do get a divorce. It's possible the cause of this relieved stigma was an increase in women's rights. Though I fear I may just be connecting the dots to fill in my own theory.

Nic Name · 11-07-2002, 10:23 PM

Rita Rinna touches he forehead of her aunt, 113 year-old Mary Christian Thursday, Nov. 7, 2002, in San Pablo, Calif. Christian is believed to be the oldest American alive. (AP Photo/Ben Margot)

The only grammatical explanation possible for the last sentence is that she is believed to be alive, otherwise the word "alive" is redundant.

In this photo Rita's explaining to her aunt that she's been fitted with a microphone because she's going to be on Larry King, the world's oldest live talkshow host.

Undertoad · 11-07-2002, 10:52 PM

Larry King will finally be interviewing his target demographic.

11-07-2002, 06:00 PM	#27
henry fitch Dry Nurse Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 23	Okay, I admit it, "they" is a couple of random Internet people I've since forgotten. Thought I could get away with it since it wasn't really related to my main point. Shoulda known better Anyhow, I can't find anything that directly references the 52% statistic, but here's a couple of related links: a reasonable-seeming FAQ with a bibliography, an iFeminist article with quotes and statistics, and a compelling but somewhat florid Salon.com feature. This is quite a bit off-topic. If anybody wants to discuss it further, perhaps a thread in some other forum is in order? EDIT: found the link for the Salon article Last edited by henry fitch; 11-07-2002 at 06:04 PM.

11-07-2002, 11:55 AM	#17
juju no one of consequence Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Arkansas Posts: 2,839	Hmm. It was taught in my General Psychology class a few years ago. I no longer have the book, so i can't cite an immediate reference. I don't mean to say it's an immutable law by any means. Just a guideline. Are YOU the same person you were twenty years ago?

11-07-2002, 12:02 PM	#18
dave Guest Posts: n/a	No, but do I fit your scientific criteria as having "changed completely"? Probably not. And I probably won't "change completely" over the next 20 years either. I have a hard time believing more than 50% of people "change completely" every twenty years, as you suggest. And I'd just like to see some evidence that this is more than wild speculation by some nutball professor.

11-07-2002, 01:10 PM	#23
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	I'm guessing we'll get more insight about "different every 20 years" from those who are over 40? I'm old enough to know I'm not old enough to know.

11-07-2002, 01:21 PM	#24
dave Guest Posts: n/a	Well, they fought around me all the time. I don't recall whether or not you were around, but I definitely was. Dad was an ass and mom was too. Just the way it goes, I guess. Neither of them ever wanted to defuse the situation, so it would always escalate. I don't think mom really ever had any intention of making it work anyway. She admitted to me once that she married dad "to get out of Oakland". Which is kinda shitty. And sort of the thing we're talking about here.

11-07-2002, 04:48 PM	#25
henry fitch Dry Nurse Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 23	I'm gonna try and parse this a bit. In the Bad Old Days, marriages lasted a long time because women had been trained to ignore grievances (sp?) or they would be beaten? That divorce is more common now because women are no longer physically compelled to remain married? That if a woman decides to live with something that bothers her about her husband, for the sake of the marriage, it's probably because she's been oppressed by years of violence into thinking she has to? Though I can't back this up by facts, I imagine a significant number of divorces are initiated by men. Even more unscientifically, I would like to put forward that men have frequently put up with shit from their wives without divorcing them. Is this because men have been beaten by their wives in the past? Doubt it. Although, they do say that 52% of spousal abuse victims are men... I'm not trying to flame you, Juju, just trying to better understand what you're saying.

11-07-2002, 10:23 PM	#29
Nic Name retired Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,930	Rita Rinna touches he forehead of her aunt, 113 year-old Mary Christian Thursday, Nov. 7, 2002, in San Pablo, Calif. Christian is believed to be the oldest American alive. (AP Photo/Ben Margot) The only grammatical explanation possible for the last sentence is that she is believed to be alive, otherwise the word "alive" is redundant. In this photo Rita's explaining to her aunt that she's been fitted with a microphone because she's going to be on Larry King, the world's oldest live talkshow host.

11-07-2002, 10:52 PM	#30
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Larry King will finally be interviewing his target demographic.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)