Today I Learned
What did you learn today? Share it with us!
We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.
** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**
Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Partnered Communities
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
view the rest of the comments
It's infuriating to listen to people talk about lack of divorce (in certain cultures, times, etc) thinking it means a successful marriage.
There's a comedian who did a bit that was something like "A lot of my friends have parents who got divorced. Mine should have but didn't. I think I had it worse".
Paraphrased horribly, but if someone recognizes this bit, please let me know because I've long since forgotten even though the gist of it has stuck with me.
Also infuriating is a certain psychologist saying "kids from parents that stay together do better", completely missing the point that there was dysfunction which led to divorce.
I don't think it's an unfair thing to say - as a professional doing public communication, staying together for the kids is in the child's best interest, generally
Obviously, if there's abuse of any kind anywhere in the house, that's no longer the case. And it's not always going to be the best choice, but it's a good idea to at least try
I wouldn't read that as "we should make divorce harder, legally or socially" - if they went on to say that they'd be way out of line IMO
He's doing a shit job communicating to the point that I question if he understands it. It's easy: Dysfunction is a scale. You have families that are fine, and of course the data coming from those families say that kids that come from parents that stay together do better. Then you have abuse like you said. The problem is he's treating the entire scale as a single data point "parents stay together, kids do better."
Disfunction isn't the only scale though - people break up for all sorts of reasons. It can be just as simple as "I'm not in love with you" or "I found someone else" - or just the fact their lives suck and they expected a partner or kids to make it better
Ultimately, when you communicate to the public, nuance doesn't get across. You can't say "the COVID vaccine is right for everyone, unless you have certain allergy or autoimmune disorders". People hear what they want to hear and will latch onto additional detail - the best you can do is distill a message
For another example, we signal "daily flossing is inversely correlated with heart disease". People who practice hygiene to that level are probably a lot more health conscious, and we've never proven a casual relationship - but putting the thought out there does more good than harm
I'm not familiar with the guy so maybe there's more not mentioned in this thread that would change my mind, but the core message itself is solid - staying together is better for kids. That's true for most people, and thinking divorce won't impact your kids is nonsense (ask anyone who grew up through that). That should be part of the mental calculus in people's heads
If you need professional help, they can deliver the nuance - that's another public health messaging "see a therapist if you're having problems". You can't get into how some therapists suck and how getting the right match is critical, but most people would benefit from the idea seeking therapy is just self care
No fucking shit. But he can't even break it down into a simple one dimensional analysis. He's still treating it as a single data point and presenting it as such.
The entire point of communicating information is to communicate the details and nuance. Good presenters can do it, bad presenters can't (or don't).
No, that's my point exactly... Public health communication is deliberately oversimplified and stripped of all nuance like this. It's a deliberate technique taught in school
Ok I have no idea what overall point you're trying to make in this conversation as a whole, so I think this will be my last reply.
If it is so simplified that it misses the point entirely and to the point that it gives the wrong impression of what's going on (to the point that I question if the person even understands it themselves) then it's infuriating to listen to them talk. Which people eat up, and then regurgitate, which is the wrong impression of what's going on. It's very easy to give some misleading narrative which people eat up. Most of this is not so complicated that it can't be explained.
My point is just that the statement "children do better when their parents stay together" is responsible public health messaging. Elaborating on it is heavily discouraged outside a technical setting, because a lot of people will leave that room with the exact opposite take away if you start talking about counterexamples
What you're describing is following best practices (although he might also have a punchable face, he doesn't sound very charismatic)
No it's not. That message is exactly what leads to what you fear: people leaving the room with the exact opposite takeaway. That message is "do not get divorced ever, bad bad bad. Anyone that gets divorced is bad bad bad." Etc, etc, etc (a whollle lot of other implications that I won't repeat). You reallllly don't have to go far to hear people have that takeaway. And it's all based on based on collapsing all the spectrums of data into a simple data point. On the other hand, elaborating on the details will lead to an actual understanding of what's healthy and when and for who. You have this completely and utterly backwards. Quite frankly I think your way of thinking (of hiding information and not discussing it) is incredibly dangerous to people and perpetuates horrible thinking in society. You have this completely backwards, what you fear (a lot of people will leave that room with the exact opposite take away) actually happens with what you advocate for. I think I'm out.
*Ok last line because I really don't want to keep replying and I'll make it as clear as I can. It's pretty clear in Project 2025 that the GOP wants to get rid of no fault divorce. That thinking is propped up by this over simplistic thinking of "it's better for the kids", "divorce is bad", and many, many other insinuations and things like that. This over simplistic thinking leads to incredibly bad ideas and support. Ok I'm out.
I mean I recognize it, but as something I frequently say to my therapist. (They finally divorced when I was 24).