upworthy

Education & Information

"I now pronounce you, in debt. You may kiss the bride."

In 1964, Paul McCartney of the Beatles famously sang, โ€œI donโ€™t care too much for money, money canโ€™t buy me love.โ€ While Mr. McCartneyโ€™s sentiments were definitely a major foreshadowing of the hippie, free-love movement that was to come in the โ€˜60s, it appears as though he was also onto a big truth that wouldnโ€™t be proven for another 50 years.

10 years ago, researchers Hugo M. Mialon and Andrew Francis-Tan from Emory University embarked on the first study to determine whether spending a lot on a wedding or engagement ring meant a marriage would succeed or fail.

The pair wanted to see if the wedding industry was being honest when it came to claims that the more money a couple spends, the more likely they are to stay together.

โ€œThe wedding industry has consistently sought to link wedding spending with long-lasting marriages. This paper is the first to examine this relationship statistically,โ€ the researchers wrote.

The researchers carried out online surveys with more than 3,000 ever-married people living in the United States.

After reviewing the answers to the questionnaire the researchers learned that spending big bucks on a wedding and engagement ring made a couple more likely to get divorced. The researchers determined that "marriage duration is inversely associated with spending on the engagement ring and wedding ceremony."

Conversely, they found that "relatively low spending on the wedding is positively associated with duration among male and female respondents."

The researchers also found that the number of people who attend the wedding matters, too. The questionnaire revealed that โ€œhigh wedding attendance and having a honeymoon (regardless of how much it cost) are generally positively associated with marriage duration."

The researchers havenโ€™t studied why people who splurge on weddings and rings have a greater chance of having to hire divorce lawyers, but they have a few theories.

โ€œIt could be that the type of couples who have a โ€ฆ (cheap wedding) are the type that are a perfect match for each other,โ€ Mialon told CNN. โ€œOr it could be that having an inexpensive wedding relieves young couples of financial burdens that may strain their marriage,โ€ he added.

Francis-Tan believes that people who have weddings with a large number of attendees are more successful because they have a lot of support.

โ€œThis could be evidence of a community effect, i.e., having more support from friends and family may help the couple to get through the challenges of marriage,โ€ Francis-Tan said. โ€œOr this could be that the type of couples who have a lot of friends and family are also the type that tend not to divorce as much.โ€

Could it also be that people who put a big emphasis on a flashy wedding and jewelry tend to bit a bit more materialistic? It makes sense that couples that are really into keeping up appearances may not have their properties straight when it comes to building a loving relationship.

To finish things off with another pop music analogy, โ€œIf you liked it then you should have put a ring on it,โ€ (just make sure itโ€™s an inexpensive one, in front of a lot of people, in your backyard).

This article originally appeared four years ago.

Education

People think Gen Z lacks resilience because they've been 'coddled.' Let's unpack that myth.

It's not that Gen Z hasn't seen enough. They've actually seen too much.

Gen Z was raised in an entirely different world.

As a parent of three Gen Z kids, Iโ€™ve spent lots of time up close with todayโ€™s teens and young adults. Looking at my kids and their Gen Z peers (ranging from age 13 to 28), Iโ€™ve noticed where the stereotypes of their generation hit the mark and where they miss. Some stereotypes are just typical complaints that older generations always have of "young people these days," but there's one barb that Gen Xers and boomers frequently throw out that I think is way off: Gen Zers lack resilience because they've been coddled and protected from the harsh realities of life.

If we use "the capacity to withstand or to recover quickly from difficulties" as a working definition of "resilience," I find Gen Z to be a mixed bag. Some of them show great resilience, some don't. A 4,000-person survey from Cigna Group found that Gen Z struggles with mental health more than older generations do, however, and child psychologist Stuart Lustig calls Gen Z "the loneliest, least resilient demographic alive today." Maybe that's true. But is it really because they've been coddled?

It's not that Gen Z hasn't seen enough. They've actually seen too much.

Some argue that the โ€œparticipation trophiesโ€ and โ€œtrigger warningsโ€ have made young people unable to handle hard things. Others argue that parents are too easy on their children. I'll concede that some Gen X parents swung the pendulum too far from their neglected childhoods, becoming "helicopter parents" who resisted allowing their kids to experience the risks, failures and disappointments that ultimately build resilience. But the idea that Gen Z as a whole has been "coddled"โ€”overly sheltered from the harsh realities of life? That one is strange to me.

These are kids who have done active shooter drills in their classrooms their entire childhoods, and not just as a โ€œthis is something that could happenโ€ but as a โ€œthis actually does happen with alarming regularity.โ€ Boomer and older Gen Xers may have hid under their desks in Cold War bomb drills, but no bombs were actually ever dropped in the U.S. Gen Zers have seen the aftermath of their peers being murdered in classrooms over and over again.

What Gen Z has been exposed to is mind-boggling compared to what their parents saw ask kids, thanks to being the first generation to never know a world without the internet. Where Gen X had access to a daily newspaper and a half hour of nightly world news, Gen Z has been subjected to constant sensationalized news streams on cable TV and the internet 24/7. But it's not just the vast amount of news. Thanks to smartphone cameras and social media, today's teens and young adults have also borne witness to scenes of violence, tragedy, and trauma unfolding in real-time, on-the-ground, all around the world.

five young adults standing looking at their phonesGen Z is the first full "digital native" generation.Photo credit: Canva

Where boomers and Gen X might have seen someone's dad's Playboys, Gen Z has grown up with devices that contain disturbing, hardcore pornography. Even if they haven't accessed or tripped across explicit content themselves, it's very likely that someone in their peer group has shown them pornography that kids in previous generations would never have been able to access. And it's happening at younger and younger ages.

There's no precedent for the world Gen Z grew up in

There's anxiety that comes along with all of this exposure, even for full-grown adults who have a foundation of a simpler time to reflect back on. Gen Z never had a simpler time. They were born into the ocean of anxiety. Then they got hit by a once-in-a-century (hopefully) global pandemic, adding another layer of uncertainty to the mix.

As a whole, Gen Z hasnโ€™t been sheltered from the harsh realities of the world; it's been bombarded by them in ways that previous generations simply werenโ€™t during their youth. Humansโ€”even childrenโ€”have experienced hard things things for millennia and evolved to build resilience to life's challenges. What humans haven't experienced until now is having an overload of information and tragic news and disturbing content from around the world available at their fingertips 24/7. There's simply no precedent for raising kids in this world, so raising Gen Z has been one big collective experiment.

Even if conscientious parents have done their best to protect their kids from its pitfalls, the internet is not a separate thing from our lives like it was in its early days. Gen Z has grown up in a digitally connected world. Even parents who manage to hold off on phones or other internet-enabled devices longer than most eventually had to give because it's become nearly impossible to be an active participant in society without the internet. Those of us who grew up in a non-digital world can attest to how much the internet has changed our lives in various, often drastic, ways. Gen Z was born into that world, and despite being "digital natives" are not immune to the anxiety and overwhelm that comes with it.

Maybe we need to rethink what resilience looks like for the "digital native" generations

All of this means that resilience for Gen Z may look different than it did for us. Their young brains have been taxed in ways ours were not. They've had to process so much more, filter so much more, learn how to navigate so much more than we did. I actually think they're doing pretty well, all things considered. They may struggle with mental health a bit more than previous generations, but they're also so much more aware of it and willing to get help with it. They may not stay in jobs with unhealthy work environments and poor work-life balance, but that doesn't mean they're softโ€”quite the opposite, in fact.

I'm not saying Gen Z couldn't use some good old-fashioned life lessons about picking themselves up and dusting themselves off. But I do think we need to acknowledge that being the first internet-enabled generation has affected them in ways we are just beginning to grasp, and that adjusting our expectations of resilience and reevaluating what resilience looks like for them might be in order.

Education

People's wrong answers to this 'easy' LSAT question are why public discourse is so hard

The basic reading comprehension and critical thinking question almost feels like a litmus test.

LSAT questions start easy and get harder as the test progresses.

Public discourse can be great when it's done well, when everyone brings thoughtful, well-informed opinions to the table and puts forth cogent arguments backed up by evidence. We don't all have to agree on everythingโ€”differences in perspectives and priorities are important ingredients in a democratic societyโ€”but the quality of the actual arguments themselves matter.

Since the advent of social media, public discourse has not been so great, especially on the internet. The written nature of online discussions seems like it would lend itself to fewer misconceptions and better understanding, but it doesn't. People draw erroneous and illogical conclusions all the time, and it often feels like reading comprehension and critical thinking skills are hard to come by. According to an unintentional social experiment on X, there may be some truth to that.

An X user (@sarahpatt08) shared a photo of a question from the LSAT, the test people have to pass in order to be admitted to law school, and asked if people found the question easy or difficult. The instructions are partially cut off but appear to indicate that you are to choose the best answer based only on the information given, avoiding assumptions that are not directly supported by the passage.

The question reads:

"Physical education should teach people to pursue healthy, active lifestyles as they grow older. But the focus on competitive sports in most schools causes most of the less competitive students to turn away from sports. Having learned to think of themselves as unathletic, they do not exercise enough to stay healthy.

Which of one of the following is most strongly supported by the statements above, if they are true?

(A) Physical education should include noncompetitive activities.

(B) Competition causes most students to turn away from sports.

(C) People who are talented at competitive physical endeavors exercise regularly.

(D) The mental aspects of exercise are as important as the physical ones.

(E) Children should be taught the dangers of a sedentary lifestyle."

These kinds of reading comprehension and reasoning questions are common to tests like the LSAT and the SAT. One way to tackle them is to start eliminating the answers that are not directly supported by the text. Starting from the bottom:

(E) is not supported because the text doesn't say anything about a sedentary lifestyle actually being dangerous, and this answer doesn't include anything the passage is focused on (competitive sports turning kids who aren't competitive away from exercise).

(D) is not supported because while competitiveness could be considered a mental aspect of exercise, it's not always. And there's nothing in the text to support the idea that mental and physical aspects of exercise are equally important.

(C) is not supported because the text doesn't say anything about talent. Someone could be competitive and enjoy competitive sports but be totally untalented, and being talented at something doesn't necessarily mean you do it regularly.

(B) is not supported because there is no indication from the passage that most students (in general) aren't competitive, only that most of the less competitive students turn away from sports.

(A) is the answer most supported by the passage because the crux of the argument in the passage is that noncompetitive students are often turned off of physical education by the emphasis on sports in most schools. Therefore, the most logical conclusion is that having more noncompetitive activities would get more kids involved in physical education.

For some people, the correct answer was simple and obvious. For others, not so much. Some people made what they thought were strong arguments for (D). Others insisted it was (E). Not many said (C) but there were a handful on the (B) train. And those who knew the answer to be (A) were taken aback by how many people came to different conclusions.

And therein lies one answer to why our public discourse often feels like it can't get anywhere. Answering a reading comprehension and reasoning question like this correctly is easy for some people. Some think it's easy but then get the wrong answer, and some see multiple answers as equal contenders for "best." Everyone believes they're the ones thinking critically and using logic, but many people fail to recognize the assumptions they make when reading and the biases and unsupported ideas that slip into their reasoning.

The most supported answer based on the text is (A). Is that what you got?

This hack promises to get rid of yellow armpit stains

There's nothing quite like getting a new shirt for a job interview and sweating straight through it. Even if you're not nervous, it's not uncommon to sweat through your shirt leaving perfect outlines of your armpits on the outside of the fabric. But if you're required to wear a collared shirt on a fairly frequent basis, you know how annoying armpit stains and ring around the collar can be.

You wash and scrub, pulling out all the tips and tricks you can think of the get the stubborn stains out but they only lightly fade. The armpits are still clearly yellow with a faint smell of B.O. while the dark ring around the collar makes you question your shower habits. It can feel like an impossible thing to rid your shirts of but it can be done, no dry cleaner needed.

Everyone's favorite "Laundry Queen," Melissa Pateras has a really easy trick for getting those stubborn areas clean. The best thing about her hack is that it involves products that you likely already have in your house.

gif of David Beckham sweatingDavid Beckham Sweat GIF by First We FeastGiphy

After one of her followers reached out asking about getting rid of armpit stains in shirts that also held on to unpleasant odor, Pateras had a quick solution. Instead of just telling the user what to do, she demonstrates the process step-by-step. She pulls out a white button up shirt that is lightly stained around the collar and in the armpit region, laying it on a white towel.

"Then you're going to completely cover the stains with some hydrogen peroxide, making sure that you're applying it straight from the bottle because it's light sensitive. That's why the bottle's brown because if it's exposed to light, it'll be ineffective," Pateras explains.

gif of Maytag manSma Sexiest Man Alive GIF by MaytagGiphy

In the video she demonstrates on a white shirt, but according to Clotheslyne, hydrogen peroxide can be used on colored clothes as well. To be safe, though, try adding it to an inconspicuous area first to check for discoloration. If it doesn't cause that piece of fabric to become discolored then you can proceed to with use.

Hydrogen peroxide is not the end of the hack for Pateras; the second step is pulling out the Dawn dish soap. "Once you've applied the Dawn to the stain, you're just going to take your finger and very gently rub it in. Once you've done that you're just going to get some baking soda and sprinkle it on, making sure to cover it completely. Once the stain is completely covered, get a brush. It doesn't matter what brush you use, you can even use a toothbrush for this but I like a power brush cause it's a lot less work," Pateras says.


@melissadilkespateras Replying to @๐Ÿ‘ฉ๐ŸฝDaniela & Annsleigh๐Ÿง‘๐Ÿฝ #laundrytokย #cleantokย #stainremoverย โ™ฌ original sound - Laundrytok | Melissa Pateras

Again, if the item is not white it's best to test all steps in a small inconspicuous area first. Nobody wants white armpits on a blue shirt, and since all materials are not made at the same quality, it's probably best to do a test every time you're trying it on a different item of clothing.

After using the brush to gently scrub the stains, Pateras advises to allow it to sit for five minutes before adding more peroxide and scrubbing once more. The treated item sits for anywhere from an hour to overnight before you toss it into the washing machine like normal. An eager viewer gave the trick a try and excitedly reported back with a shirt that looks like it was recently purchased.


@natmanzoc stitch with @Laundrytok | Melissa Pateras who is DOING THE LORD'S WORK #fashionhacksย #laundrytokย #thriftedย #whiteshirtย #diyย #diyfashionย โ™ฌ original sound - nat ๐ŸŒˆ๐Ÿซ  thrifted style & diy

"I need to talk to you guys about this. Okay, so you see this white shirt? You see how the collar looks nice and clean? You see how there are no discernible stains in the underarm area? Yeah, that's cause I did exactly what this person told me to do," the woman says referring to Pateras. "I have tried so many things trying to get stains out of my white shirt. Shout, OxiClean, all kinds of sh-t."

The woman, who goes by Nat on TikTok, says she thought her shirt was beyond saving but this hack now has it looking nearly brand new. So if you've been struggling with getting armpit stains out of your shirts, give this hack a try and see how it works out for you.