Lies, Damn Lies, and Divorce Statistics

In a recent article in the San Diego Union, Richard Louv contrasted the work of anthropologist Helen Fisher with that of psychoanalyst Judith Wallerstein (Louv, “For Many Children”). Fisher asserted that the new family structures resulting from a high divorce rate can have an overall positive effect on children and society. Louv drew conclusions from Wallerstein’s work that directly contradicted Fisher’s findings. Louv’s conclusions, however, are simply not supported by the evidence he presented in his article. He dismissed offhand the concept of a re–emerging village society, yet cited as evidence for his views factors which are either irrelevant or which are often cited by experts as evidence that a village society is, in fact, emerging. He also dismissed the idea of an extended family, again without supporting his position. He supported his assertion that divorce causes long–term harm to children by citing statistics that are meaningless in the context in which he applies them. Worse still, while he acknowledged fatal flaws in his evidence, he nonetheless drew from that evidence a conclusion that absolutely does not follow from the information given. I am the victim of a marriage that should have ended long ago. My parents stayed together “for the children.” Were it not for the sort of specious reasoning promulgated by people like Mr. Louv, many families similar to the one I was raised in would have been free to explore healthier alternatives.

As if abusing the statistics was not quite enough, Louv proceeded to dismiss as minor a problem with Wallerstein’s survey data. The “flaw” in her report was nothing less than the total omission of that most basic aspect of any scientific experiment, the control group. In other words, there is absolutely no evidence that Wallerstein’s results would have been any different at all had she surveyed families that had not experienced a divorce. The short–term studies alluded to, which purport to ameliorate somewhat the devastating consequences of the unscientific approach to the survey, cannot be considered relevant; the deleterious effects of remaining in an intact but dysfunctional family are quite likely to take longer to manifest themselves than would the effects of a single, traumatic event like divorce. Avoiding the paying of bills will certainly help the short–term cash flow, but eventually those bills will come due with interest and penalties.

-- RonRisley - 10 Mar 1989