Science secrets to a successful marriage (or indeed union)

[BlodwynPig]

Stumbled on this paper from 2010, where they have used optimal control theory to understand the dynamics and failure of marriage

https://www.scilit.net/article/c50f57a63c8fcad1baa408ed736ff180

Abstract: Marital dissolution is ubiquitous in western societies. It poses major scientific and sociological problems both in theoretical and therapeutic terms. Scholars and therapists agree on the existence of a sort of second law of thermodynamics for sentimental relationships. Effort is required to sustain them. Love is not enough. Building on a simple version of the second law we use optimal control theory as a novel approach to model sentimental dynamics. Our analysis is consistent with sociological data. We show that, when both partners have similar emotional attributes, there is an optimal effort policy yielding a durable happy union. This policy is prey to structural destabilization resulting from a combination of two factors: there is an effort gap because the optimal policy always entails discomfort and there is a tendency to lower effort to non-sustaining levels due to the instability of the dynamics. These mathematical facts implied by the model unveil an underlying mechanism that may explain couple disruption in real scenarios. Within this framework the apparent paradox that a union consistently planned to last forever will probably break up is explained as a mechanistic consequence of the second law.

tl;dr - despite your best efforts your marriage is likely to fail unless you are strong enough to resist the 2nd law of thermodynamics

[Ambient Sheep]

Apparently the most reliable metric for whether a relationship will last is the ratio of positive to negative interactions between a couple.

Some scientists did a study where they monitored couples for a week or two, counted up the interactions, then five years later checked if they were still together.  The correlation was surprisingly high.

Annoyingly I can't remember the exact figures now, but I think it was above 5:1 good:bad that predicted togetherness, with something like 85-90% accuracy.

Thinking back to previous failed relationships, and the ways in which they declined, I can find that utterly believable.

[pancreas]

I would have thought in your case it was more to do with the fact that your wife is an insane.

[Mister Six]

tl;dr - despite your best efforts your marriage is likely to fail unless you are strong enough to resist the 2nd law of thermodynamics

Er, no, it's that if you both make your best efforts, your marriage will sustain. The Earth doesn't die off because of the second law of thermodynamics because it isn't a closed system - the sun is continuously supplying energy. Similarly, your marriage will continue to be a success provided you both actively engage in keeping it alive.

[pancreas]

^ divorced within six months.

[Captain Crunch]

As long as you're both wildly codependant and have delusions of grandeur you'll be fine:

[Blumf]

Er, no, it's that if you both make your best efforts, your marriage will sustain. The Earth doesn't die off because of the second law of thermodynamics because it isn't a closed system

So you're suggesting swinging?

[Ray Travez]

I saw a study about two decades ago, a microexpression that expressed contempt was a strong factor in the failure of a relationship. They videoed couples and rewatched the tape, and if this facial indicator showed up, the couple split soon after- if it wasn't present then there was a good chance the couple would stay together.

[Mister Six]

^ divorced within six months.

Married for four years now, BITCH.

(That's what I wrote in her anniversary card this year.)

[Hank the Rapper]

[Sebastian Cobb]

lol

[BlodwynPig]

Er, no, it's that if you both make your best efforts, your marriage will sustain. The Earth doesn't die off because of the second law of thermodynamics because it isn't a closed system - the sun is continuously supplying energy. Similarly, your marriage will continue to be a success provided you both actively engage in keeping it alive.

Er, no...and get out of my house and take the dog!

[Gregory Torso]

I think the secret to a successful marriage is living on a completely different continent to your spouse and only communicating through scrambled beerdrunk 4 a.m. wechat messages.

[Bence Fekete]

Tests show[nb]Tests[/nb] that in a "successful" marriage this dynamic[nb]The key to a sustained union being that, originally, one side or the other has to be just slightly more desperate[nb]desperate to keep the con going for the precise amount of time it takes to convince the adjacent soul that removing their underwear might be an activity beneficial to both parties[/nb] for the relationship to work outright[/nb] will shift frequently between the two like a mood dart until it weaves an oscillating matrix of extreme dependency. By this stage both emotional inmates (e-mates) will have long forgotten whose turn it was to be the more desperate to be loved and thus we award them collectively the harmonious nobility of "successful".

[jobotic]

I think the secret to a successful marriage is living on a completely different continent to your spouse and only communicating through scrambled beerdrunk 4 a.m. wechat messages.

Oh right, well I'll just do that then shall I?

Totally impractical.

[Jerzy Bondov]

Keep your science out of my marriage. That's what I said when my wife made the frankenfucker monster (monster that fucked me)

[QDRPHNC]

My partner nearly walked out on me last night because I didn't want to watch Altered Carbon. So fuck knows.

[tao of wub]

your marriage is likely to fail unless you are strong enough to resist the 2nd law of thermodynamics

This is all very interesting BlodwynPig, but I have to wonder.  After all, Peter Atkins bloody well wrote a book called, The Laws of Thermodynamics,[nb]along with many other very tedious dry tomes which I almost without fail did not manage to read[/nb]

https://www.amazon.com/Laws-Thermodynamics-Very-Short-Introduction/dp/0199572194

And he is on his THIRD wife now.[nb]Admitedly, partnership 2 was with the scary Baroness Greenfield, can't image that being a barrel of laughs.  They certainly were not out clubbing off their bonces on e if I know Greenfield's research funding sources and conclusions[/nb]