Divorce Rates...

Different name, different IP, but still Seattle, so we'll just assume Gosh is back. This time Gosh is bringing a statistical assault of punishing force.

First, family values. In 2001, there were 572,000 divorces in red states and 340,000 blue states. Eleven red states had higher divorce rates than any of the blue states.

As we all know, Gosh didn't do this research itself, it was at some lefty website which provides prepackaged attacks for unimaginative liberals to foist on anybody unfortunate enough to be in foisting range. It's also worth noting that I'm a conservative, not a Christian Conservative. Despite this, liberals always think they can shoehorn me into their particular “evil Republican” stereotype, which generally looks like a whoring, greedy, drunkard oil baron/televangelist. In this vein, Gosh is trying the “party of morals? AS IF!” attack. So, even though I'm an athiest, and could care less what people do with their lives (so long as it doesn't involve fucking with mine), I'll engage Gosh's idiot statistics, just to demonstrate the danger of outsourcing your intellect to democrats.com.

I went here, for my divorce stats: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/mar%26div.pdf

I should point out that there are two states here without divorce rates listed. Indiana and Louisiana. I've completely omitted these states from my statistics, since it's really the only option. In some cases, states don't have complete stats. In those cases I've used the most recent ones available.

So, if we sort on divorces per capita, we find that the top ten divorce rates are indeed red states. Nevada, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Alabama, Wyoming, Idaho, Kentucky, West Virginia, Florida, Tennesse, in that order. All red states. Wow, Gosh really won this round, huh?

But, is ths really the right way to examine these statistics? Does it really show how much people in these states respect marriage? No. What we really would like to know isn't divorces per capita, but divorces per marriage. Luckily, the PDF above gives us the numbers we need to calculate that. If we look at the top 10 states according to divorce per marriage, we have Oklahoma, Mississippi, Arizona, Washington, California, Oregon, West Virginia, Colorado, Michigan, North Carolina, in that order. Not all red states anymore... Now it's six red states, and four blue states. Not quite the crushing indictment of red states that Gosh thinks, is it?

Nope. See, when we talk about “red states” and “blue states” we forget just how red that electoral map ends up being. In fact, as of 2004 there were 33 red states, and 18 blue states. Yes, I know that adds up to 51. District of Columbia. There are significantly more red states than blue states. So, if you randomly select 10 from the 49 electoral regions in our sample set (31 red, 18 blue), you'd get about 6.3 red states, and 3.7 blue states. And when we look back at the top ten states for divorces per marriage, what do we see? We see 6 red states, 4 blue. Not a crushing indictment at all, really. In fact, there's more blue states in the top 10 than is statistically average.

But there's more. Let's stop playing games, let's just take the average divorce per marriage rate in blue and red states, and compare. The final score:

Red: 0.494406847
Blue: 0.513413286

Yeah. The actual fact is that blue states have more divorces per marriage than red states.

Now, does any of this really matter? No, not really. Statistics are bullshit, which is why I wasn't taking my post about top High Schools at all seriously. But there is still a lesson to be learned... See, I went out and found statistics and examined them on my own terms, and drew my own conclusions. Gosh just went here and copy/pasted it without citing his source. Or maybe here.

Bottom line, we see what passes for thought in liberal circles. Keep proving me right, Gosh.

posted on Wednesday, May 03, 2006 4:48 PM

Feedback

# re: Divorce Rates... 5/3/2006 10:05 PM Maude from 24.19.46.198

I think you're right. There are also far more acres of red state. Fewer people, but far more acres.

Not only that. More people in blue states get divorced, on average, more times per marriage than some people in red states. That means they may marry once, but divorce more than once.

And if you randomly select an acre from the United States, the likelihood of selecting a red acre is higher than selecting a blue acre. Thus, while the population distribution of colors may favor the blue, the distribution of acreage favors the red. If you factor in the price per square foot, you're looking at a lot more real estate value, even though urban square footage tends to be more expensive than rural square footage, because there are a far greater total number of square feet in red acres than blue acres.

So red acreage makes a better investment, too.

# re: Divorce Rates... 5/3/2006 10:18 PM Jack from 67.166.2.58

You're kidding, right?

I could go line by line, and quote you, and point out what's wrong with everything you're saying, but I'd feel awful stupid if you were just joking, and pretending to think idiotic stuff as some form of self-deprecating joke...

So, please, tell me you're kidding?

# re: Divorce Rates... 5/3/2006 10:24 PM Shrug from 24.19.46.198

From http://www.divorcereform.org

"Red states have a divorce rate 27% higher than blue states."

"A rate per married people, instead of per straight population, would be even more helpful, but we do not know of a consistent source for that number. If you do, please tell us." Perhaps you should inform them of your divorces per marriage statistic. It may be hard to determine meaning from this stat, however; does it not reflect that divorcees are more likely to remarry -- and redivorce?

More here: Is it as simple as red vs blue?

WILLIAM R. MATTOX JR.: Diamonds are forever
http://www.divorcereform.org/mel/rgeog.html

...draw a line across the midsection of the continental United States (along the northern borders of North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Arizona, and continuing through southern Nevada and central California). More than 60 percent of the total U.S. population lives above what might be called "the tan line." Yet less than half of all divorces occur here, and all 10 states with the lowest divorce rates are above the tan line.

In fact, believe it or not, Teddy Kennedy's home state of Massachusetts is No. 1 in marital stability. Donald Trump's New York follows close behind. Conversely, almost all of the states with the highest divorce rates are found below the tan line. And four of these states - Alabama, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Tennessee - are located right in the heart of the Bible belt.

...Devout Catholics have especially low divorce rates - apparently because Catholic parishes often take the responsibility of marriage preparation and enrichment more seriously than Protestant churches do.

Thus, one of the reasons for the relatively low divorce rates in the Northeast and Midwest is because these regions tend to have a higher concentration of Catholics than do other geographic areas.

University of Texas sociologist Norval Glenn says another factor affecting regional differences in divorce is "social rootedness." His research shows that people who live in stable communities are less apt to divorce because they are more likely to be enmeshed in an inter-generational social network that helps them evaluate potential mates, offers them marital advice and support, and expects them to work through any domestic problems that may arise. Thus, the Sun Belt's higher divorce rates are due, in part, to the fact that this region has more social instability than less-transient areas in the Northeast and Midwest.

# re: Divorce Rates... 5/3/2006 10:36 PM Jack from 67.166.2.58

Yes, Gosh, you're very good at cutting and pasting. I'm very proud of you.

Please stop spamming other people's thoughts at me. If I want to google shit, I'll google shit. I'm trying to understand exactly how shaky your grasp of statistics is.

Do you understand why I chose to use "divorce per marriage" as opposed to "divorce per capita?"

Please say "yes" or "no." If the answer is "yes" then please tell me why you think I did that, so I can tell if you actually do understand.

If it helps, you can go google the word "yes" or "no" and then copy paste somebody else saying it. You're like a kidnapper, holding your own tiny intellect hostage, making ransom notes out of newspaper clippings.

# re: Divorce Rates... 5/3/2006 11:26 PM Plug from 24.19.46.198

No. Please explain.

# re: Divorce Rates... 5/4/2006 12:08 AM Jack from 67.166.2.58

So, you don't understand something, but you make fun of it anyway? Do you see why I think you're an idiot?

You proffered up this argument that red states have more divorces per capita as a way of showing that red states are hypocritical, and don't have the respect for marriage they claim to. Actually, you didn't, somebody else did, and you just passed it off as your own. But regardless...

First off, let's be sure you understand statistics and logic. In a given state, you have a population, you have a marriage rate, and you have a divorce rate. In that population you have a certain number of married people, and you have a certain number of unmarried people. In a given year, the divorce rate can be higher than the marriage rate. That doesn't mean that "they may marry once, but divorce more than once." That's not possible. What it means is that the total number of married people in the state is decreasing. But, as it so happens, this is not the case in any of the states, so don't worry.

So, when one examines divorces per marriage, it's rates, not instances. By comparing these two rates, one can determine what the success rate on a marriage is in a given set. For example, if a state has 10 marriages per 1000 people, and 5 divorces, you can determine that roughly half of the marriages in that state are failing at that point in time.

Remember, this is a discussion of respect for the institution of marriage. A high marriage rate indicates a commitment to marriage. Your stolen statistics could have just as easily said that red states demonstrated a much higher commitment to marriage, based upon their much higher marriage rate. But that's not it's goal.

Ultimately, by combining marriage rate and divorce rate, we see that people in red states are both more likely to enter into marriage, and more likely to remain in that marriage when they do. This is, by all metrics, demonstrative of a greater commitment to marriage.

What your idiot cut'n'paste statistics are saying, is akin to claiming that Michael Jordan is a worse basketball player than random benchwarmer, cause Jordan missed more shots per game than benchdweller. It ignores the fact that Jordan still hit a higher percentage of shots, and took more shots, than benchwarmer.

In short, it displays a total ignorance of basic statistics.

# re: Divorce Rates... 5/4/2006 1:44 AM Pope from 24.19.46.198

"by combining marriage rate and divorce rate, we see that people in red states are both more likely to enter into marriage," (YES) and more likely to remain in that marriage when they do" (NO)

Not if the divorce rate is higher. How can you not get that?

If the marriage rate is higher, then it merely indicates that a higher percentage of people are married.

If the divorce rate is higher, then it indicates that a higher percentage of married people have divorced.

Dividing the marriage rate by the divorce rate yields your "divorces per marriage" number, but it does not follow that in populations with a lower "divorces per marriage" ratio are more likely to remain married.

It just indicates that more couples are getting married per capita.

But in the case of the "red states", a higher percentage of married couples are subsequently getting divorced!

The question of whether this has any causal relationship with "respect for the institution of marriage" is entirely unaddressed by these statistics in any case. Without measuring respect for the insitution of marriage, how can we take this assertion beyond an unsupported hypothesis? We can't. Not without further research. Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

# re: Divorce Rates... 5/4/2006 1:54 AM Pope from 24.19.46.198

Actually, I should correct something. My mistake -- it's late.

["Dividing the marriage rate by the divorce rate yields your "divorces per marriage" number, but it does not follow that in populations with a lower "divorces per marriage" ratio are more likely to remain married.

It just indicates that more couples are getting married per capita.]

That is wrong. Feel free to gloat.

The rest of the post is fine.

# re: Divorce Rates... 5/4/2006 2:11 AM Jack from 67.166.2.58

"Not if the divorce rate is higher. How can you not get that?"

You should really watch your tone when you don't know what you're talking about.

I do get it. I understand statistics. You don't. I explained it. You're too stupid/stubborn to follow.

Should I try again?

"Dividing the marriage rate by the divorce rate yields your "divorces per marriage" number, but it does not follow that in populations with a lower "divorces per marriage" ratio are more likely to remain married."

Yes, it does. That's exactly what it indicates.

"It just indicates that more couples are getting married per capita."

No, it doesn't. Marriage per capita is marriage per capita. I can't make it any simpler for you.

The marriage rate is the number of marriages per capita. If you divide that by the divorce rate, how can it STILL be the marriage rate per capita?

Seriously, this is extremely basic statistics, and you're embarassing yourself.

"But in the case of the "red states", a higher percentage of married couples are subsequently getting divorced!"

NO. LOWER. It's roughly 49.4% in red states, 51.3% in blue states when one takes the average of the individual states' percentages. I already showed you this.

"The question of whether this has any causal relationship with "respect for the institution of marriage" is entirely unaddressed by these statistics in any case."

I realize that. However, the stat in your article, which looks only at per capita divorce rate, is even more superficial. I'm simply showing that even in the realm of superficial statistics, yours are skewed (probably deliberately) and thus faulty.

Plus, you're an idiot who doesn't get basic math.

Let me make this as clear as I can. Apparently there's no level of simplicity that will insult your intelligence.

State A and State B have equal populations, and no married people.

State A has 10 marriages and 5 divorces. State B has 5 marriages and 3 divorces.

State A has a higher number of divorces per capita. This is where your ability to calculate leaves off.

State A has 5 intact marriages, and 5 divorces. 50% of their marriages ended in divorce.

State B has 2 intact marriages, and 3 divorces. 60% of their marraiges ended in divorce.

I think the problem you're having is that you're using the phrase "divorce rate" to apply to more than one thing. People often use "divorce rate" to represent the percentage of marriages that end in divorce. That is NOT the same thing as the number of divorces per capita.

Marriage/Person - is not - Divorce/Marriage.

They're different things.

Now is the time for you to realize that every post you make without getting it is another embarassment to you. In 2 posts or 20 posts, you'll still be wrong. Figure it out now, please.

# re: Divorce Rates... 5/4/2006 8:57 AM Muddled from 24.19.46.198

What is the purpose of a divorce rate if not to measure the percentages of marriage that end in divorce?

Without knowing the populations of States A and B, how can you compare marriages per capita?

Let's try this.

State A has 20 people, 10 marriages, and 5 divorces in one year. Thus, it had a 100% marriage rate and 50% of marriages ended in divorce. I call that a 50% divorce rate. Wouldn't you?

State B has 20 people, 5 marriages, and 3 divorces. Thus, it had a 50% marriage rate, and 60% of marriages ended in divorce.

State A has a higher marriage rate and a lower divorce rate.

State B has a lower marriage rate and a higher divorce rate.

Agree?

Now, how did you arrive at your calculation that 49.4% of married couples in "red" states divorced, whereas 51.3% of married couples in "blue" states divorced?

How is this possible if the top 10 highest divorce rates (percentage of marriages that end in divorce) are in red states?

This isn't an argument about values, it's an argument about numbers. You've talked about percentage and average, not stats. We're not even into stats yet.

# re: Divorce Rates... 5/4/2006 10:58 AM Jack from 67.166.2.58

Last chance....

I already explained this, but I'll explain it again. Pay attention.

Your problem lies with the term "divorce rate." You're applying the same term to two different values, and you're not aware you're doing it.

Now, re-read the previous paragraph ten times, until you understand it. You're confused. Please stop trying to come up with a reason why I'm wrong.

You, like most Americans, have become accustomed to hearing "divorce rate" in the context of marriages that fail. In the United States, the "divorce rate" is somewhere around 50% (if I recall correctly). That means that 50% of all marriages end in divorce.

What is that? That's divorce / marriage. From now on, we will call this "divorce rate."

In your example, for State B, that's 3 / 5, .6 or 60%.

In the context of these statistics the term "divorce rate" has also been applied to the number of divorces per capita. This is a different number entirely, but you're using the two terms interchangeably, and it's confusing you.

What is this? It's divorce / people. From now on, we will call this "divorce per capita."

In your example, for State B, that's 3 / 20, .15 or 15%.

See? They're not even remotely the same number.

"Now, how did you arrive at your calculation that 49.4% of married couples in "red" states divorced, whereas 51.3% of married couples in "blue" states divorced?"

I took the divorce per capita and divided it by the marriage per capita. This gives each states divorce rate. I then took the average from this value for red states and blue states. Those are the percentages I gave. I would have liked to weight the percentages for state population, but I didn't feel like taking the time, and clearly you weren't worth taking it for.

"How is this possible if the top 10 highest divorce rates (percentage of marriages that end in divorce) are in red states?"

The top ten states in number of divorce PER CAPITA are red states. These states also happen to be high in marriage per capita as well. So, yes they have a lot of divorces per citizen. They have a lot of marriages per citizen. If you have a lot more marriages, you can also have a lot more divorces, and still have a lower "divorce rate."

"You've talked about percentage and average, not stats. We're not even into stats yet."

Percentages and averages are stats. But, I agree "we're" not into stats yet. I am, and you're too confused to ever be, apparently.

To repeat, cause I know you need it. You're applying the term "divorce rate" to two different values. You are making a mistake. Please clue up.

# re: Divorce Rates... 5/9/2006 2:49 PM Deadeye Dick Cheney from 71.97.33.125

OMFG, you are a bunch of fucktards!

"Far more acres of red state"?????

"More divorces per marriage"?????

How far afield do you asshats have to stray from reality in order to FINALLY concoct misbegotten formulae like those?

Let's see what you can do with this fact:
Two times as many Americans disapprove of the job that the pathetic failure George Bush is doing than approve.

# re: Divorce Rates... 5/9/2006 2:54 PM Deadeye Dick Cheney from 71.97.33.125

Holy shit! "Your stolen statistics"...as opposed to what? your made up statistics? Right wing dead-enders like Jack make me najaculate coffee on my keyboard. It's expensive watching them make idiots of themselves!

Post Feedback

Title:

Name:

Url:

Comments:

Enter the code you see:

Remember Me?

Jack's Blog

Archives

Post Categories

Links

Feedback

Post Feedback