Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Not really, as long as only 50% or marriages end in divorce (maybe false, but stated), you clearly have a distribution skewed to the right even if most of the 50% were of the serial variety. As serial as they might be (and I doubt that most of divorces are of the kind), they can't have a negative duration, whereas you can go way over 14 years.

It's 50% of marriages, remember, not of married people. So if someone were to get married and divorced 10 times within a year, you'd need 10 couples staying together until death to compensate just for him.

Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi

by Cyrille (cyrillev domain yahoo.fr) on Sun Nov 4th, 2012 at 02:57:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Precisely, if you stay married for 40 years until death and I marry 10 times for a duration of 4 years each...

80% of marriages end in divorce.
The average length of a marriage is 7 years.

I distribute. You re-distribute. He gives your hard-earned money to lazy scroungers. -- JakeS

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Nov 4th, 2012 at 03:03:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That's a fat tail in the long duration. The median in your example is 4 years, the average 7. The point is that under the assumption that 50 % of marriages are not dissolved by divorce, the median is "'til death do us part."

But as pointed out upthread, the "50 % of marriages end in divorce" figure is a misunderstanding of demographic statistics so basic that a first-year economics undergrad would flunk his first exam if he made it.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Nov 4th, 2012 at 03:11:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The 7 years figure is even more wrong.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sun Nov 4th, 2012 at 04:03:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series