Love lab predicts marital outcome [BBC].

Its real name is the Relationship Research Institute [at the U. of Washington]. It is here that scientists say they have created a mathematical model that can tell which marriages are doomed to end in divorce. Psychologist John Gottman and applied mathematicians James Murray and Kristin Swanson claim their predictions have 94% accuracy - and this after viewing just the first few moments of a conversation about an area of marital contention. The key turned out to be quantifying the ratio of positive to negative interactions during the talks. The magic ratio is five to one, and a marriage can be in trouble when it falls below this. The mathematical model charts this interaction into what the researchers call a "Dow-Jones Industrial Average for marital conversation".

This is interesting, but I still have to point out that there is an implicit bias at work here, namely, that marriages are the only kinds of relationships that are worth studying or talking about. There was a good article in the Times the other day about how one of the main sticking points for both sides in the gay marriage debate is the word "marriage" itself. None of the constitutional amendments under consideration in Massachusetts would prevent the creation of "civil unions", which would carry fully ALL of the rights that heterosexual marriage would. But this still doesn't make anyone happy. Gays want to be "married", and bigots want "marriage" only for themselves -- simply due to the social acceptance that supposedly comes along with the word. Why is marriage so revered?!? And, the companion question, why is divorce so stigmatized?!? The divorce rate is really high. Different ways of calculating it assign it different numbers, but an extremely rough number we've all heard is that 50% of all marriages will end in divorce (and, recently, it's been reportedly higher). I have personal philosophical objections to the institution of marriage, but I'm not here to tell others what to do. What I AM here to do is to point out that marriage should not carry with it this idea of permanence. It's a slightly weighted coin flip. Get married if you want, but remove the stars from your eyes first: it'll probably end in divorce. Moreover, who cares? When it's assumed that the word and concept "marriage" itself is an absolute good, we spend far too much time wringing our hands over the bad that comes from the end of marriages. Why is an unhappy marriage superior to two happy single people? If our intention is to allow as many children as possible to grow up with two parents present, then perhaps we should emphasize some concept other than marriage as a prerequisite for birthing and raising new humans. I nominate the concepts of maturity, levelheadedness, wisdom and experience. I'm going to skip to the conclusion, and point out exactly what's to blame for all this debate and semantic posturing about "marriage" and "civil unions" and this undue emphasis on marriage in society as a whole: religion. Religion is a substitute for critical thought. Marriage is a religious ritual that was co-opted by secular society as a business relationship, but still tried to retain its mystical aspects. Hence, people enter into these very serious and binding legal agreements without thinking about every aspect thereof. "God wants me to marry this guy, I can tell!" And, truthfully, it doesn't even have to be a formal monotheistic deity: "I have to listen to my heart, and I just KNOW that this woman is the one for me." There is no cerebral cortex in the heart. Perhaps more practice using the brain would rid society of the need or desire to "listen" to the "heart", and, hence the need to both marry AND subsequently divorce. HA! It's so SIMPLE when you're a snob!