Exception to the Rule

Related Articles

“Safe supply” is itself an addictive drug, and a political ideology

The progressives' insistence on "safe supply" has little to...

The progressives in Ottawa and at liberalvision CTV “News” aim to exhaust us with lies

When even the government-appointed "special Interlocutor" (LOL) is as...

Marco Misinformer

Lots of tweets this morning about Marco ("Misinformer") Mendicino,...

We conservatives tend to like statistics. We love studies that show how the world really works, because in general conservatives like to focus on ideas that have results. We’re not invested as much in how the world should work as much as we are in how the world does work. Sure, we’d all like it if children could succeed at school regardless of how pathetic their parents were as long as we invested more money, but life doesn’t work that way. We’d all like it if problems like juvenile delinquency or abuse could be solved with more feel-good ads paid for by the government on television, but it doesn’t work like that, either.

Liberals, on the other hand, tend to be focused on how they want the world to work. They want to be able to solve intractable problems with more money, or more government intervention, because we should be able to do these things. They want people’s personal decisions to not have negative repercussions for themselves, and for generations to come, because many liberals aren’t comfortable with Judeo-Christian morals which say that sex belongs in marriage, and marriage is for life. Because they don’t like this, they try to “cure” the problems that come when people violate these rules with more government, more schools, more community organization. It doesn’t work.

Because conservatives tend to be more results oriented and reality based, we turn to statistics to prove our points. Quite frequently, as I write these family columns, I’ll make note that marriage improves people’s health, reduces abuse, and boosts income. Unfortunately, I recently got into a flap when some single people took offense, saying that I was condemning them to a sub-par life because they weren’t married.

Today, then, I’d like to take a look at the proper use of statistics, from a conservative point of view. First, many people get their backs up about statistics because as soon as they hear one, they think of the exceptions. Whenever we hear that cigarette smoke causes lung cancer, we think of Uncle Jim Bob who smoked two packs every day of his life until he keeled over at 102 from a bad case of indigestion. Those researchers obviously don’t know what they’re talking about!

Well, yes. And no. Statistics are very good at telling us about the general. They tell us nothing at all about the specific. Whenever we hear that marriage, for instance, tends to make one happier, we think of our best friend who has become a mouse since her wedding because her husband berates her constantly. But just because you can think of an exception doesn’t invalidate the study.

Statistics are only supposed to point to trends, and those trends are real, so it’s worth listening to their warnings. Waiting until you’re 37 or 38 to start having children, for instance, can lead to a lot of heartbreak. It’s just harder to get pregnant in your late thirties than it is in your late twenties. But that doesn’t mean it won’t work for you; just that you should be aware of the risk, and decide accordingly. Similarly, studies tell us that staying married for the kids, even if you aren’t happy, is still better for the kids than if you split up. Nevertheless, that doesn’t mean that your particular kids will do better, or that you should stay with a serial adulterer. But ignoring the stats just because you don’t like them can be awfully stupid. I remember talking to someone close to me who was about to ditch her husband to move in with her lover. “What about your kids?” I asked. She laughed it off. “They’ll be fine. They’re good kids.” I would have none of it. “I was a good kid, too,” I replied, “and I wasn’t fine.” I wish in retrospect she had listened to me. Society would be much better off if more people heeded those warnings.

While studies should warn us, though, they don’t need to limit us. After all, if I lived my life solely according to statistics, I shouldn’t be happily married with two great kids and a good education. I should have married someone distant, if I married at all, and ended up with a lot more chaos in my life. Children who grow up without fathers tend to end up in worse shape than those who grow up with fathers, and girls who grow up with abusive or absent fathers tend to marry abusive or distant men. Learning these facts early helped me to make much better choices about whom I dated, knowing that I’d probably initially be drawn to the wrong people!

Statistics can warn us, then, but anybody can buck a trend. You can decide not to be a statistic. You can decide to be that high school dropout single mom who works hard to complete her education and succeed. You can be that child who grew up in an abusive home who chooses your spouse well and then works hard at making your family stay together. You can be the child of a teen mother who decides not to repeat the pattern.

So next time you hear a statistic that rubs you the wrong way, take a deep breath and ask yourself, “Is there a warning in there for me? Should I change course?” And if you decide to plow ahead anyway, then at least you know the danger spots. Sounds pretty conservative to me.

Latest posts by S. Wray Gregoire (see all)

You can use this form to give feedback to the editor. Say nice things or say hello. Or criticize if you must. 

    Your Name (required)

    Your Email (required)

    Your Message

    Do you Have a File to Send?

    If so, choose it below

    This is just a question to make sure you're not a robot:

    This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

    — Normally this would be an ad. It's a doggy. —
    Exit mobile version