Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Vaishnav Sunil's avatar

Feel like you've identified Goodhart's law in a domain it's usually not talked about. If a policymaker just thought lowering divorce rates is what they ought to do, they could do this in a couple of ways:

1. Make it harder for people to get divorced. If the barrier is already high then doing so would either have no impact or keep people in awful marriages. If the barrier to divorce were low, this might actually work but we know that's generally speaking, untrue.

2. Improve the mapping process - This would actually make sure people enter into higher quality marriages on average.

Notice 1 is infinitely easier and more conducive to central planning than 2. If i'm policymaker, i'm so much more likely to add a bureacuucratic burden to the divorce process than try to build and open source an AI driven dating platform.

I think we can safely say that it's more likely than not that social engineering here will produce worse outcomes in expectation.

Expand full comment
Peter R. Brookes's avatar

I agree that whether a couple wants a divorce is probably a pretty good indicator that they should get a divorce (under a utilitarian criterion) - but I'm less convinced of how perfect an indicator it will be.

Whilst status quo bias keeps people in marriages, grass is greener sentiments can conceivably have people jumping ship prematurely. And there is reason that people may have a grass is greener attitude, i.e., be overly optimistic of the situation outside of marriage - namely that the last time people were in the dating pool, they were younger.

Further, liberal cultural attitudes to divorce are likely to give people excessively optimistic ideas of their prospects out of their marriage.

Lastly, although people greatly care for their children, they tend not to be perfect altruists to them - so there is still a problem of externalities here. Some divorces will be for the best for the children - which conservatives often forget. And it probably isn't just abusive relationships where divorce is better for the children - I can't imagine growing up in a non-abusive but incredibly acrimonous home is in the welfare-interests of many people. At the same time, I think we can agree that there will be many divorces, instigated more by a vague discontentment, that will be very costly to the children and/or one of the partners.

So, I think that it's reasonable to suggest that at present, with many leaving marriages because of an apparent lack of spark and in the absence of particularly strong problems, the divorce rate is above optimum for the utilitarian.

At the same time, if we did take the pivot of conservative feminists - increasing negative social attitudes to divorce and making it harder - then the grass is greener sentiment would be lower, and the lower divorce rate would probably be below the utilitarian's optimum, e.g., with many staying in acrimonious marriages under the misconception of it being for the best.

So, whilst I'm not convinced that the divorce rate at present is a good indicator of the optimum divorce rate, I wouldn't suppose that this means that the conservative takes are correct either here.

I wonder if a move in a better direction that would have wide appeal would be that people have to sit down and work out exactly what their expectations are. In the secular age, people often get into marriages with varying degrees of seriousness about the commitments they are making and varying beliefs about what the commitments look like in practice. We don't rely as much on common religious teachings to give us details of what it should look like. If irreligious and less devout people took the time to agree a more detailed picture, there would probably be a better idea of the agreement, and therefore - I posit - a lower chance of it being suboptimally terminated.

Expand full comment
11 more comments...

No posts