I'd wager the cause and effect are backwards, same as how those studies go "Oh, men who are married end up earning way more than their unmarried peers". It's not that marriage improves your ability to earn money, it's that men with higher incomes get women(or in some cases they get nagged to earn more). Similarly it may be the case that happy men end up in marriages rather than men end up in marriages and become happy as a result.
Statistics is just propaganda via math. Observe the world rather than numbers if the truth is of interest to you.
Similarly it may be the case that happy men end up in marriages rather than men end up in marriages and become happy as a result.
You're still stuck in the trap. It isn't either of those. It's that the fail state is defined out of the equation: Survivorship bias is built into the question.
"We polled 200 living survivors of gun violence, and found that none of them died. Therefore, we can assume it's likely that gun violence doesn't cause deaths."
That words it a bit more hyperbolically, but also a bit more clearly for you. The men who are ruined are hidden away in the divorce, separated, widower, or suicide statistics, not the happily married in a functional marriage statistic, so it doesn't matter how many happily married in a functional marriage men you poll, you're not going to find data on the ones who hit that fail state. [EDIT: And when 50% of marriages end in divorce, letting that 50% of the pollable data in question get allocated to "single" men instead, and then summarizing that these divorced, broke, broken, abused "single" men are clearly miserable, is the worst lying with statistics.]
While I disagree with your view on science, I agree that you make an excellent point. Unless they've controlled for other variables, there's no evidence that there's any causal link. They admit this when they say 'more likely'. Fair enough, and good job pointing that out.
I'd wager the cause and effect are backwards, same as how those studies go "Oh, men who are married end up earning way more than their unmarried peers". It's not that marriage improves your ability to earn money, it's that men with higher incomes get women(or in some cases they get nagged to earn more). Similarly it may be the case that happy men end up in marriages rather than men end up in marriages and become happy as a result.
Statistics is just propaganda via math. Observe the world rather than numbers if the truth is of interest to you.
You're still stuck in the trap. It isn't either of those. It's that the fail state is defined out of the equation: Survivorship bias is built into the question.
"We polled 200 living survivors of gun violence, and found that none of them died. Therefore, we can assume it's likely that gun violence doesn't cause deaths."
That words it a bit more hyperbolically, but also a bit more clearly for you. The men who are ruined are hidden away in the divorce, separated, widower, or suicide statistics, not the happily married in a functional marriage statistic, so it doesn't matter how many happily married in a functional marriage men you poll, you're not going to find data on the ones who hit that fail state. [EDIT: And when 50% of marriages end in divorce, letting that 50% of the pollable data in question get allocated to "single" men instead, and then summarizing that these divorced, broke, broken, abused "single" men are clearly miserable, is the worst lying with statistics.]
While I disagree with your view on science, I agree that you make an excellent point. Unless they've controlled for other variables, there's no evidence that there's any causal link. They admit this when they say 'more likely'. Fair enough, and good job pointing that out.