Additionally, arranged marriages need not be 'see someone for 10 mins and say yes or no'. There is a large variation in how the whole thing can potentially be set up. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arranged_marriage#Arguments_for... for a list of pros and cons that gives you both sides of the story.

Not that I dislike anthropology. But it's more fun as a game that you can play from home.

I learned what you're saying here from an anthropology anthology in college. But somehow it's a lot more credible coming from an unedited, contemporary person.

Of course. If you didn't have the choice of who to marry then you resign yourself to the notion. But if you made the decision yourself then you'll always wonder if maybe you could have chosen someone way better for you. There was a TED presentation about this some time ago...

(Not saying it's not possible that the particular arranged marriage may have matched you with the best person for you anyway)

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_...

edit: Fixed the link, it wasn't the one I meant to link to.

When it comes to arranged marriage, people don't rely on scant information, they have a network of people to cross verify all the cited credentials.

> people I know would think I'm insane for even entertaining the idea that there could be redeeming qualities of arranged marriage

It's a sad state of affairs when people condemn you just for being willing to look at the evidence.

I don't know about the Indian system, but I know in some East Asian cultures it is normal for the wife to run the household finances. That means the primary spender is financially literate, has a feeling of responsibility, and knows the couple's financial status. Contrast that with the US, where wives often have a very vague grasp of the couple's finances, yet are in charge of most of the spending. American wives can run a man into the ground and then blame him; East Asian wives take pride in maintaining healthy household finances. The downside is that a man can become financially irresponsible if his wife's level of control makes him feel emasculated. The ideal is a true feeling of joint responsibility, and neither system ensures that. It has to emerge from the trust and good faith of both spouses.

Whenever a society is permissive of divorce, the divorce rate rises.

When a society strongly disapproves of divorce (or makes it legally tough), well, that's another matter.

There's a high correlation between societies with arranged marriage traditions and a disapproval of divorce. (A->B not necessarily B->A.)

What the question really boils down to is this: Are people happier in general in societies with predominantly arranged marriages or in societies with love marriages. It would be great if we had this dataset directly, but without the data, we can say that about 1/2 of every marriage in non-arranged cultures end up so unhappy that they break up. We do not have corresponding data for societies with arranged marriages if what you say is taken into account.

But in general, if so many of these non-arranged marriages are dissolving, it seems to show to me that simply letting the young people choose without any vetting process is not leading to good results. A 50% failure rate is not acceptable.

Your argumentation bypasses the fundamental issue.

I will say, very frankly, that I believe arranged marriages have the ability to make marriages, on average, more happy. Before any of the free-choice fanatics decry this, here is why that does not work here: happiness is purely perception. If you change the parameters of the environment, the equation for happiness does not remain the same, as in, more freedom does NOT imply more happiness as many people would like to believe.

If you are starving, anything edible tastes good. If you are a slave since birth, any reward is enjoyable. If you are resigned to an arranged marriage, you are less aware of the pains of opportunity costs, therefore it is very plausible that you try to make the best of the marriage.

Since those exact same societies had a low divorce rate not too long ago, it's unreasonable to blame the high divorce rate on what didn't change between then and now (love-based) and ignore what did change (ease of getting a divorce and stigma).

Yes, US divorce is expensive and can be long, but it is also socially accepted and easy to start. The latter is more relevant than the length and expense of the process because said process keeps itself moving. (The expense and length is also a choice - the choice to fight, which has nothing to do with "ease of divorce" or love vs arranged.)

This is actually a statistical fallacy. The divorce rate is not that high in the United States.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/19/health/19divo.html

If you want to avoid divorce, don't marry a divorcee.

Incidentally, while divorce == FAIL, unhappy marriage == EPIC FAIL. But I guess the latter is hard to measure, so lets just focus on the former.

Based on whose criteria?

In any case, what you see as a "failure rate" I see as a correction. Defining every marriage that ends before death as a "failure" is a statement full of personal bias.

Does the person who after a year of marriage discovers that the institution isn't for him fail because he gets divorced? Has the wife who gets divorced because her husband beats her nightly failed in some way?

Applying engineering terms and analysis techniques to human relationships is a horse that's lost before he even got out of the gate. We're people, not robots!

That depends strongly on jurisdiction and the particulars of the divorce. I had a mutually-agreed divorce last year, and it only took a coupla months, and was less than $1K. The legal and financial part of the divorce were by far the easiest parts of it.

Divorce is only one possible indicator of unhappiness, there are lots of people who are unhappy and do not or cannot divorce.

You also assume that divorce leads to decreased happiness overall and I'm not convinced that's true either.

Moreover, I think it's pretty remarkable that almost 50% of people make a "successful" choice of a life partner. (Exclusively in the sense that they do not divorce.)

Considering how horrible people are at decisionmaking in general, and how vague and slippery the idea of "happiness" is, (see Stumbling on Happiness, and/or Mistakes Were Made for a great layman's overview), it's pretty remarkable... or merely a great indicator of how much people are willing to withstand/fool themselves/constrain their nature.

Yeah, sure, to Americans and Europeans.

Lots of women (and thus men) live in countries where they are unable to divorce, or able to divorce in only a few very specific and constrainted circumstances... otherwise, tough shit.

And if you want to think about "tough," think about Syria, where apparently the man has legal guardianship of children post-divorce no matter what, even if the kids live with their mother, she cannot make any decision about their lives (such as which doctor to see).

I'm not speaking from experience here, but I would guess any marriage requires a lot of compromise and understanding, regardless of how they came together.