Latest news with #VoxCulture
Vox
4 days ago
- General
- Vox
How much work is too much in a relationship?
If you've been to an engagement party, bridal shower, or wedding, you've probably heard a well-meaning relative offer these sage words of wisdom: Marriage is work. Hard work. Persistent work. A lifelong project. The adage is instructive, but it's also a warning — this relationship will try your patience, and for it to endure, you must be willing to put forth the effort. This is undeniably true. All relationships require maintenance to survive. No two people will ever see eye-to-eye on everything, will never have enough time to spend together, and will, at some point, feel a gulf of distance between them. Healthy relationships are constant conversations; they require cooperation, give and take. Anything less is just complacency. But, in today's culture, relational upkeep is increasingly considered problematic. The rallying cry to 'protect your peace' and incessant warnings around 'red flags' encourage individuals to part with relationships that require any elbow grease, fine-tuning, or uncomfortable conflict resolution. This is, perhaps, a response to the longstanding expectation that women in heterosexual relationships will overlook, excuse, or attempt to correct bad behavior. Wouldn't it be nice, then, if you could pinpoint exactly how much 'work' is too much work? If you could identify the number of times you're supposed to re-tread the same old argument before you can throw in the towel? How do you decide when a rough patch is just reality? In between the two extremes of 'cut them off' and 'do anything to make it work' is the goldilocks of romantic labor: enough effort from both parties to ensure the relationship can grow. While everyone maintains a different line for what they consider 'too much' work, research supports the idea that people who put effort into their relationships are happier in the long run — and that work might look much more humdrum than you think. Vox Culture Culture reflects society. Get our best explainers on everything from money to entertainment to what everyone is talking about online. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. But keeping a partnership afloat shouldn't come at the expense of your own mental and physical health. As impersonal as it may seem, it helps to think of relationships as another job: Just like dissatisfied employees search for greener pastures, burnt-out couples shouldn't be ashamed to leave a bad fit behind. The labor of love Working to maintain a romantic relationship is a somewhat recent phenomenon. Until the 20th century, people largely got married and stayed married — 'and they didn't really talk about their relationships in terms of this work analogy,' says Kristin Celello, an associate professor of history at Queens College, City University of New York and author of Making Marriage Work: A History of Marriage and Divorce in the Twentieth-Century United States. But by the end of the 19th century and early 20th century, with divorce rates climbing, a hodgepodge group of social scientists, psychologists, and the media united in their panic concerning the sanctity of marriage. And thus, a brand new field was born: marriage counseling. That's when the idea of marriage as work also took root, Celello says. The notion persisted in the ensuing decades, especially after the post-World War II divorce boom. It was thought that this essential work, Cellelo continues, was 'the way to strengthen your relationship and also prevent divorce.' Feminism in the late 1960s and '70s helped promote the idea that relational upkeep shouldn't exclusively fall to wives. Throughout the 20th century, social movements called into question who this work benefits (spoiler alert: it's men) and who all the responsibility falls to (it's women). Until the 1970s, it was the wife who attended marriage counseling, Celello says. The problems in a marriage were largely blamed on a woman's behavior. ('In the '50s, the idea is, well, if your husband's drinking, what are you doing to make him drink?' Celello says.) Feminism in the late 1960s and '70s helped promote the idea that relational upkeep shouldn't exclusively fall to wives and encouraged women to set non-negotiables in their relationships. It slowly became the mainstream view during this time that 'there are things that can happen in a marriage which you shouldn't keep working,' Celello says, 'like when it comes to abuse or infidelity.' These days, a conservative-led push for higher marriage and birth rates along with the rise of the trad wife — which glamorizes the experience of a stay-at-home wife and mother — has once again valorized the idea of 'work,' at least in a heterosexual marriage. 'In conservative circles now, in the 21st century, we [have] sort of come back around to people don't put enough respect on marriage, and that they don't work hard enough,' Celello says, 'and that maybe it's okay if there's some degree of even physical violence or, [what] others might see as abusive.' At the same time, a spate of popular divorce memoirs have encouraged women to leave marriages where they find themselves carrying most of the burden. What we mean when we say relationships are work How much work you're willing to put into a relationship largely depends on your attitude toward romantic partnerships. People generally fall into one of two camps when it comes to beliefs about romance, says Fabian Gander, a research associate at the University of Basel. One group puts a lot of stock in destiny — the idea that you've been brought together by fate and are soulmates. The other believes in growth — that a relationship can be nurtured and problems repaired over time. In a study from last year, Gander found that those who believe in soulmates are happier in the short term, but those who think of relationships as something you work for are more satisfied in the long run. Partnerships where both parties have strongly held destiny beliefs were less satisfied with their relationships over the years. Other research has supported Gander's findings. Research from 2012 found that effort was associated with satisfaction and stability in couples, whether they were living together, married, or in a new relationship post-divorce. The researchers measured effort based on how participants related to statements like 'I tend to fall back on what is comfortable for me in relationships, rather than trying new ways of relating' and 'If my partner doesn't appreciate the change efforts I am making, I tend to give up.' Couples who are highly connected and have more successful marriages, a 2022 study found, were more likely to be intentional and proactive about showing compassion, spending time together, and being kind to one another. They also underwent regular 'relationship maintenance,' that included expressing needs, discussing problems, and setting goals for improving the relationship. Why does work — or a belief in the power of effort — seem to equate to relationship satisfaction? 'Probably because [these couples] are prepared to invest effort,' Gander says. 'They know that I cannot just relax.… Maybe they know that this isn't how things work out best.' Couples who have more successful marriages were more likely to be intentional about showing compassion, spending time together, and being kind to one another. Gander is also continuing to study what type of 'work' the happiest couples engage in. As a part of the research, Gander and his team asked couples what activities they did together over the course of two and a half years, ranging from going hiking and doing dishes to talking on the phone and having sex. Couples who maintained shared activities remained happy, and, in some cases, got happier over time. 'Of course, real life is hyper-complicated, but one part of the answer may be that couples need to keep up the level of interactions,' Gander says. 'These things are always intertwined. So if I'm in a happy relationship, I will gladly do something with my partner, and the other way around if I'm not happy.' In today's hyper-busy, over-scheduled world, the renowned relationship therapists John and Julie Gottman have their own suggestions for couples looking to put in extra work. Couples who hope to strengthen their relationships should spend an extra six hours together, focusing on quick chats at the beginning and end of each day (20-odd minutes a day), showing physical affection (five minutes a day), and scheduling a weekly date night (two hours a week). When enough is enough More time, more conversation, and more vulnerability doesn't always serve a relationship. Especially if you're the only one partaking. In even the healthiest of partnerships, there will be an imbalance between an 'over-functioner' and an 'under-functioner,' according to Lexx Brown-James, a licensed marriage and family therapist and sexologist. Over-functioners have 'been taught to be hyper efficient,' Brown-James says, 'which begets an under-functioner partner… who doesn't do as much in the family or in the relationship, because it's permissible to do so.' This dynamic inevitably breeds frustration. The over-functioner believes their partner doesn't carry their weight, whether with household chores, emotional conversations, or child care, and the under-functioner feels bossed around. 'They come to therapy saying 'we have communication problems,'' Brown-James says. 'I often say that it's not a communication problem, it's an intimacy problem. Neither one of you is risking being vulnerable, whether that's saying I need help, or I feel like I'm failing, or I feel like I'm not good enough, or I'm struggling with what you're doing right now.' Want to put a little more work into your relationship? The researchers John and Julie Gottman devised a cheat code for improving relationships: Spend an extra six hours a week together. Here's how to build that time into your schedule. Chat for two minutes before saying goodbye each weekday. At the end of each work day, kiss for at least six seconds and then catch up for 20 minutes. Share your appreciation for each other every day. (The Gottmans approximate this will take five minutes a day.) Devote five minutes a day to physical affection: cuddling, kissing, hugging, etc. (35 minutes) Schedule a two-hour date night each week. (120 minutes) Finally, check in with each other for an hour to discuss the positives in your relationship as well as any issues. (60 minutes) Absent those honest conversations, resentment can brew; you can burn out on your relationship. You might stick it out because you've been taught relationships are work, after all. In these moments, Brown-James says, it's often imperative to look within. Society often reinforces gendered stereotypes that dictate women serve as the over-functioners and men as the under-functioners. To buck those narratives, you have to get comfortable asking yourself what it is you really need out of this relationship. This is especially important if you're not used to expressing your desires in a relationship in order to please your partner. 'That work on self means that you know what you want,' Brown-James says, 'you're able to verbalize it, you're able to recognize when you get it, and you're also able to reciprocate and see that you're the person that can deliver what the other person wants.' Sometimes, that independent work occurs at different paces, sometimes it doesn't occur at all. And it's okay to not want to wait for your partner to reach their own clarity. Before calling it quits, consider what your goal of the relationship is, Celello says. Is it to be married (and stay married)? Is it to coparent children? Is it financial security? 'How does a partnership enable you to do that or not?' Celello says. Your idea of appropriate effort may change based on each of these goals. Related Why couples are choosing cohabitation over marriage On occasion, however, despite countless conversations and attempts to bridge divides and truly hear each other out, all that work isn't enough. No one can tell you when you've crossed that threshold. Throwing in the towel shouldn't be seen as a sign of defeat. It signals a willingness to find happiness elsewhere, even if that's solo. 'People, when they don't like their jobs,' Celello says, 'will start a new career, and they'll find other sources of accomplishment and enjoyment.' That's work worth honoring, too.
Vox
20-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Vox
The tech billionaires are missing the point of their favorite sci-fi series
One of the most momentous developments of the new Trump era is how major billionaires in the tech industry — frequently known as the broligarchs — have thrown their weight behind the president. During the 2024 election, they offered high-profile support and made big donations; after the inauguration, they announced new company policies that aligned them with President Donald Trump's regressive cultural ideologies. It was a massive show of power that revealed how possible it is for these wealthy men to remake our culture in their own image, transforming how we speak to each other and what we know to be true. Using that power on Trump's behalf seems to have paid mixed dividends for Silicon Valley, but it nonetheless makes clear how important it is to understand their worldview and their vision for the future. Vox Culture Culture reflects society. Get our best explainers on everything from money to entertainment to what everyone is talking about online. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Which is why it is striking to note that Musk, Bezos, and Zuckerberg share a favorite author: Iain M. Banks, the Scottish science fiction writer best known for his Culture series. Banks is an odd choice for a bunch of tech billionaires. The author, who died in 2013, was a socialist and avowed hater of the super-rich. Banks is an odd choice for a bunch of tech billionaires. The author, who died in 2013, was a socialist and avowed hater of the super-rich. Related Silicon Valley got Trump completely wrong Plenty of us like and even identify with pieces of pop culture whose politics we don't entirely agree with, like the libertarian Little House on the Prairie books or the Christian Chronicles of Narnia. Still, the Banks Culture series, which consists of 10 books released between 1987 and 2012, is not politically coded so much as it is downright didactic. 'The Culture is hippy commies with hyper-weapons and a deep distrust of both Marketolatry and Greedism,' Banks said in an interview with Strange Horizons in 2010, in a line that's only barely more explicit than the books themselves. The Culture series takes place in a post-scarcity galactic society known only as the Culture, which strictly values empathy, pluralism, and social cooperation. Most of the volumes of the series see the Culture navigating an altercation with another civilization, usually one with a much less progressive ethos, and figuring out how to handle the resulting tension. Does the Culture intervene in the affairs of another planet to, for instance, stop the spread of a theocratic empire? What does it do about civilizations where slavery is legal? The politics of these books are not subtle, and they are also not compatible with the existence of billionaires. So it's worth thinking about why the broligarchs have so consistently cited a socialist author as an inspiration. What do they find tantalizing about Banks' work? Are they missing the point altogether? Almost everything about the Culture books is opposed to the world as seen in Silicon Valley Nearly every aspect of the Culture seems to be diametrically opposed to the worldview of the tech right. Banks takes as his starting principle for the Culture the idea that a space-faring civilization will have to be socialist to be effective. In the hostile environment of the vacuum of space, he argues, you will need to be able to count on the collective. Banks further reasons that each spaceship or planet in the Culture will have to be reasonably self-sufficient to survive. At the same time, the Culture is stringently non-hierarchical and non-individualistic. There is no money and no want; therefore, there can't be any billionaires or any economic inequality. There are no laws and almost no crime. This is not a world in which supremely wealthy people who use their power to influence the social fabric make sense. 'Succinctly; socialism within, anarchy without,' Banks concluded in a 1994 Usenet post in which he lays out his full theory of the Culture. In the Culture, should someone commit an action that most people agreed was unacceptable, everyone responds with social shaming rather than the rule of law: They stop inviting the person in question to parties. In other words, like a group of proper leftists, they deal with misbehavior by social cancellation, that great threat against which the broligarchs have declared war. Even work-life balance in the Culture exists in opposition to the ethos of Silicon Valley. The Culture's citizens have invented vastly powerful AIs that take care of governance for them. This delegation frees up the Culture citizens themselves to indulge in what Banks describes as 'the things that really mattered in life, such as sports, games, romance, studying dead languages, barbarian societies and impossible problems, and climbing high mountains without the aid of a safety harness.' Those who are burdened with too much ambition to be content in such a soft life take on (unpaid) jobs managing the Culture's relationships with other civilizations, mostly for the prestige and the adrenaline rush of it all. This vision appears to have influenced Musk's idea of a future in which AI has rendered work 'optional,' so that 'if you want to do a job that's kinda like a hobby, you can do a job.' Musk allows that there would need to be 'universal high income' for this plan to work, but outlines no ideas as to how such an ambitious policy could take effect. In the meantime, in our own world, Amazon, Meta, and Tesla are all infamous for requiring employees to work abusively long hours. Elon Musk is one of the most ardent fans of Iain M. Banks's Culture series. Nathan Laine/Bloomberg via Getty Images But it's not just that the Culture holds the inverse of the ideology these men stand for. The most detestable villain in Banks's series is Joiler Veppers, a wealthy man in a civilization less evolved than the Culture, who uses his riches to purchase and influence media outlets, undercut labor unions, and rape his indentured servants. Veppers's money comes from a family fortune built in the computer game industry, and he compounds that fortune by investing in the servers to a series of virtual reality hellscapes, where unfortunates are horribly tortured for all eternity. If you want to know how Banks views capitalist tech billionaires, you don't have to hunt very hard. In the Culture series, a capitalist tech billionaire is the literal devil, only he couldn't be bothered to build hell himself. So why are the broligarchs so into the Culture books? So what's the appeal of the Culture series if you actually are a capitalist tech billionaire? Probably the tech itself. If politics offer the Culture books their intellectual framing, the tech is what gives them their zing, their spectacle. Throughout the series, Banks lovingly describes spaceships and AIs (and lots of spaceships that are also AIs), and artificial planets and gizmos and gadgets. Generally, at the end of the book, the Culture uses one of those gizmos in an inventive way to win a big, explosive space war. Read through this light, the Culture's technological prowess offers the brute force that backs up its warm and fuzzy ideology. The Culture can afford to be idealistic and worry about its moral culpability because it has better technology than all the other civilizations it faces off with, which means it will nearly always win in a fight. If you think of yourself as a titan of industry who is making that technology for your own culture — who is providing the brute force that allows for wishy-washy moralizing — there is a certain easy comfort that comes with this alignment. You know you are on the correct side of history because you're on the side that is building the strongest and most advanced technology. Related Welcome to the age of billionaire joyrides to space Yet within the larger metaphor Banks is building, the relationship between politics and strength is supposed to be the other way around. The Culture is not good because they are strong. Their strength is a metaphor for their goodness. They have the best technology because that shows that they are rational, that they value intelligence, that they are motivated to give their citizens the best possible quality of life. The Culture is not good because they are strong. Their strength is a metaphor for their goodness.
Vox
16-05-2025
- General
- Vox
Don't let a messy house stop you from hosting
Inviting people over to hang out at my house is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, I don't need to leave home. On the other, I'm plagued by anxiety, not because I don't enjoy seeing my friends, but because of all the tidying and cleaning I feel pressured to do even for a casual evening of watching TV. In an instant, I transform into my mother, frantically scrubbing and organizing. To welcome guests into a house that shows signs of life — a pile of unopened mail sitting on the dining room table or crumbs in the couch cushions — is to open yourself up to judgment. Vox Culture Culture reflects society. Get our best explainers on everything from money to entertainment to what everyone is talking about online. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. It's a common sentiment among those of hosting age: the manic cleaning that precedes the arrival of guests, memed and parodied ad infinitum. Of course these concerns primarily afflict women — centuries of socialization have reinforced the notion that the condition of a home is a woman's business. (A 2019 study found that women are held to higher cleanliness standards than men and are more likely to face negative social consequences for failing to meet that standard.) Mothers, who are somehow expected to be the primary caretaker and keep the house spotless on top of everything else, carry an even heavier domestic burden. Whenever Ciara Bogdanovic's clients come to her with these concerns, she can't assure them that no one is judging the state of their home. But she can promise them that the majority of people aren't. 'Often,' Bogdanovic, a licensed marriage and family therapist, says, 'we project our own beliefs about ourselves onto what we believe others are thinking.' But here's the thing about hanging out at home: It's free, low-key, and convenient. And we should be looking for more ways to find connection, not less, given the negative physical and mental health consequences of loneliness and social isolation. Many people crave more time with their friends, yet the anxiety of hosting what should be an undemanding get-together may preclude them from seeing their buds more often. So the only rule you really need to keep in mind is to make sure your house is just tidy enough for guests to relax, experts say. Fear of having a space that looks like people live there shouldn't hold you back from spending time with friends. If they're judging you, that's a reflection on them. The fear of judgment Personal standards for how a home 'should' look before hosting are shaped by past experiences, Bogdanovic says. Many people either had a relative who stressed the importance of cleaning up for guests or saw the caricature depicted in culture — or online. Across social media, images of uber-organized homes and performative cleaning videos create the false perception that the average home looks like a magazine. We also have a tendency to compare our spaces to those of our friends. 'You're comparing your behind-the-scenes with someone else's highlight reel,' says KC Davis, a therapist and author of How to Keep House While Drowning. 'When you're at home, you're looking at your home the way it really looks in the midst of living there. When you go over to other people's homes, most people are cleaning before you get there.' This tendency to compare is also why you might find yourself subconsciously spotting dust bunnies in a friend's home. 'There might be some conclusions we're trying to draw,' says licensed clinical social worker Alyssa Petersel. 'Is this person doing better or worse than I am in life, financially? Is their style more or less like what I want my style to be?' These observations impact how we view ourselves. Assuming you don't want to be critiqued about your own home, it's always best to suspend judgment about how others live. Unless the state of their home poses a danger to those living there, what they choose to clean — or not — before you come over is not worth commenting on. 'What is important to you in a friendship?' Bogdanovic says. 'Is cleanliness and perfection really the most important thing? Or would you prefer someone who listens to you and you have fun with?' Aim for clean enough The primary goal of a host should be to pay attention to guests, not a stray toy. Davis says to focus your efforts on making the room where you'll be hanging out comfortable for guests. Think practically: providing a place to sit (that isn't covered in pet hair), making sure the floor is clear so people can walk around, offering drinks and snacks on fresh dishes, ensuring the bathroom is clean. The dishes in the sink or your disorganized bedroom? Not so much a priority. 'As long as things are sanitary, people aren't going to remember what it looks like,' Davis says. 'They're going to remember the way that they felt and the time that they had while they were there.' Whatever you do, don't apologize for the state of your house, experts say. If you feel awkward when you notice a guest eye your disorganized coat rack, you can cut the tension with a quick joke, like, 'Come on in, we live here!' or, 'The kids have taken over with their jackets.' If you're still feeling self-conscious, Bogdanovic suggests observing your friends' actions and body language. Are they looking around your house or sitting rigidly trying to keep as little of their body from touching your sofa as possible? Or are they lounging and engaging in conversation? Take stock of what's actually happening, not what you're imagining is happening. Unless you truly value spending hours cleaning, focus on your priorities, Bogdanovic says, which is probably spending quality time with your friends — an activity that contributes to happiness more than a clean house. Letting friends into your space, mess and all, breaks the cycle of perfectionism. Once you ditch the expectation that homes should look like furniture showrooms, your friend group may feel more comfortable hosting despite the chaos in their kids' rooms, too.
Vox
16-05-2025
- General
- Vox
The only rule you need to follow before inviting friends over
Inviting people over to hang out at my house is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, I don't need to leave home. On the other, I'm plagued by anxiety, not because I don't enjoy seeing my friends, but because of all the tidying and cleaning I feel pressured to do even for a casual evening of watching TV. In an instant, I transform into my mother, frantically scrubbing and organizing. To welcome guests into a house that shows signs of life — a pile of unopened mail sitting on the dining room table or crumbs in the couch cushions — is to open yourself up to judgment. Vox Culture Culture reflects society. Get our best explainers on everything from money to entertainment to what everyone is talking about online. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. It's a common sentiment among those of hosting age: the manic cleaning that precedes the arrival of guests, memed and parodied ad infinitum. Of course these concerns primarily afflict women — centuries of socialization have reinforced the notion that the condition of a home is a woman's business. (A 2019 study found that women are held to higher cleanliness standards than men and are more likely to face negative social consequences for failing to meet that standard.) Mothers, who are somehow expected to be the primary caretaker and keep the house spotless on top of everything else, carry an even heavier domestic burden. Whenever Ciara Bogdanovic's clients come to her with these concerns, she can't assure them that no one is judging the state of their home. But she can promise them that the majority of people aren't. 'Often,' Bogdanovic, a licensed marriage and family therapist, says, 'we project our own beliefs about ourselves onto what we believe others are thinking.' But here's the thing about hanging out at home: it's free, low-key, and convenient. And we should be looking for more ways to find connection, not less, given the negative physical and mental health consequences of loneliness and social isolation. Many people crave more time with their friends, yet the anxiety of hosting what should be an undemanding get-together may preclude them from seeing their buds more often. So the only rule you really need to keep in mind is to make sure your house is just tidy enough for guests to relax, experts say. Fear of having a space that looks like people live there shouldn't hold you back from spending time with friends. If they're judging you, that's a reflection on them. The fear of judgement Personal standards for how a home 'should' look before hosting are shaped by past experiences, Bogdanovic says. Many people either had a relative who stressed the importance of cleaning up for guests or saw the caricature depicted in culture — or online. Across social media, images of uber-organized homes and performative cleaning videos create the false perception that the average home looks like a magazine. We also have a tendency to compare our spaces to those of our friends. 'You're comparing your behind-the-scenes with someone else's highlight reel,' says KC Davis, a therapist and author of How to Keep House While Drowning. 'When you're at home, you're looking at your home the way it really looks in the midst of living there. When you go over to other people's homes, most people are cleaning before you get there.' This tendency to compare is also why you might find yourself subconsciously spotting dust bunnies in a friend's home. 'There might be some conclusions we're trying to draw,' says licensed clinical social worker Alyssa Petersel. 'Is this person doing better or worse than I am in life, financially? Is their style more or less like what I want my style to be?' These observations impact how we view ourselves. Assuming you don't want to be critiqued about your own home, it's always best to suspend judgment about how others live. Unless the state of their home poses a danger to those living there, what they choose to clean — or not — before you come over is not worth commenting on. 'What is important to you in a friendship?' Bogdanovic says. 'Is cleanliness and perfection really the most important thing? Or would you prefer someone who listens to you and you have fun with?' Aim for clean enough The primary goal of a host should be to pay attention to guests, not a stray toy. Davis says to focus your efforts on making the room where you'll be hanging out comfortable for guests. Think practically: providing a place to sit (that isn't covered in pet hair), making sure the floor is clear so people can walk around, offering drinks and snacks on fresh dishes, ensuring the bathroom is clean. The dishes in the sink or your disorganized bedroom? Not so much a priority. 'As long as things are sanitary, people aren't going to remember what it looks like,' Davis says. 'They're going to remember the way that they felt and the time that they had while they were there.' Whatever you do, don't apologize for the state of your house, experts say. If you feel awkward when you notice a guest eye your disorganized coat rack, you can cut the tension with a quick joke, like 'Come on in, we live here!' or 'The kids have taken over with their jackets.' If you're still feeling self-conscious, Bogdanovic suggests observing your friends' actions and body language. Are they looking around your house or sitting rigidly trying to keep as little of their body from touching your sofa as possible? Or are they lounging and engaging in conversation? Take stock of what's actually happening, not what you're imagining is happening. Unless you truly value spending hours cleaning, focus on your priorities, Bogdanovic says, which is probably spending quality time with your friends — an activity that contributes to happiness more than a clean house. Letting friends into your space, mess and all, breaks the cycle of perfectionism. Once you ditch the expectation that homes should look like furniture showrooms, your friend group may feel more comfortable hosting despite the chaos in their kids' rooms, too.
Vox
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Vox
The secret to actually trusting each other
Among all the mental calculations and decisions we make each day as complex social beings, we choose, actively or implicitly, to trust. By staying in our relationships, we trust our partners won't betray us. By showing up at the stop, we trust that the bus will arrive. By making the reservation, we trust our friends will show up for dinner. But that trust is fraying. A 2019 Pew Research Center report on trust found that 71 percent of respondents thought interpersonal trust — in other words, confidence they had in their fellow citizens — had waned over the last two decades. The share of Americans who generally trust one another has dropped to 30 percent since the 1970s, when half of Americans placed trust in others, the authors of this year's World Happiness Report found. Conversely, each successive generation is less likely than the one before to value honesty. This mistrust extends beyond interpersonal relationships: Hardly a quarter of respondents in a 2024 Pew survey said they trusted the government to do the right thing. There are a multitude of factors prompting this rise in distrust. Some have suggested economic inequality, technology, and increasing diversity in the US (along with ethnic segregation) are to blame. But a major contributor seems to be political polarization. The 2019 Pew survey, for instance, found that over 40 percent of Americans don't trust others to cast informed votes in elections or to have civil conversations with those who have differing opinions. Trust is a necessary component in every relationship. Without it, we're unable to be vulnerable, to share our dreams, to hold secrets, to feel safe. Hardly anyone would prefer to be made the fool — healthy skepticism can prevent you from clicking on a phishing link in an email or joining a multilevel marketing scheme — but a life of cynicism isn't preferable either. Vox Culture Culture reflects society. Get our best explainers on everything from money to entertainment to what everyone is talking about online. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. 'There are a lot of people who claim that they don't trust anybody,' says Peter Kim, a professor of management and organization at the USC Marshall School of Business and author of How Trust Works: The Science of How Relationships Are Built, Broken and Repaired. 'But if that were the case, how could anyone possibly function? You have to be able to trust that when you're walking down the street, someone won't shoot you. You have to trust that the meals you order at a restaurant haven't been poisoned.' How do we decide to trust? Trust, according to Oliver Schilke, a professor and director of the Center for Trust Studies at the University of Arizona, is a willingness to make yourself vulnerable to another with the expectation that their actions will be beneficial to you. Research has established that when weighing whether to trust someone, people generally make judgments about their competence, benevolence, and integrity. Within the first few minutes of meeting someone, we make assessments based on these three factors, Kim says — and that first impression is usually positive. We generally trust others, at least initially. What do we base these judgments on? Others' appearance, how they speak, whether they grew up in the same hometown, their reputation, whether they look like us. But these cues are imperfect, Kim says. The more we get to know new colleagues, neighbors, friends of friends, the more information we have to go on. We learn whether our initial trust was accurate based on their actions, whether they actually prove to be a trustworthy person. Or we get burned and discover maybe they weren't. Are we all born inherently trustful? To determine whether this inclination to trust comes from nature or nurture, Schilke and his colleagues studied adult twins and found that genetics plays a role in how trusting we are, but not how distrusting. Distrust, the researchers found, is a unique experience, shaped by past experiences throughout life, especially childhood — parents and peers influence who you're wary of. Those who have experienced betrayals early in life report lower levels of trust as they age. If you had a negative experience with a specific type of person — a teacher, a romantic partner, an authority figure — you may be more likely to find all people who share those characteristics untrustworthy. 'This is something that we do without thinking,' Schilke says. 'It's essentially a form of stereotyping. If that one person treated me bad, the other person that's similar is going to do the same thing.' Trust, on the other hand, is inherited through genes. 'Some people are just genetically more trusting than others,' Schilke says. Trust can be inborn, while suspicion is learned. Past behavior is informative when it comes to who you trust, Schilke says. If a friend consistently cancels plans at the last minute, you can assume they'll behave similarly yet again. But we also make calculations about the future when we decide to trust someone. If you expect to have a long-term relationship with someone, whether by choice or happenstance — maybe you work on the same team or live in the same neighborhood — the more likely you are to place trust in them. When you're stuck with a person for the foreseeable future, you hope they want to keep the peace. 'There's a reason to think that this person will be more trustworthy because they don't want to screw up that future relationship,' Schilke says. Three easy ways to foster trust, according to a psychologist Anthony Chambers, a clinical psychologist and director of the Center for Applied Psychological and Family Studies at Northwestern University, offers a few tips for how to build more trust in your relationships: Approach differences with curiosity : No two people are completely aligned all the time. Don't judge others when you disagree, but dig deeper to discover why they feel the way they do. Embrace a team mindset : 'When we know we are with a partner that is looking out for our best interests and is always thinking about how any decision impacts both of us,' Chambers says, 'then we feel like we have a teammate we can trust.' Creating a shared vision for the future with your partner, friend, or loved one lets them know you're as invested in this relationship as they are. Lean into transparency: You don't need to disclose all aspects of your life to every close connection, but when you're open and transparent with others, they feel more secure and less likely to be blindsided. Indeed, trust is specific to the people in a particular relationship. In a study, Jaimie Arona Krems, an associate professor of psychology and the director of the UCLA Center for Friendship Research, and her co-authors found that even when someone is generally dishonest, if they haven't betrayed our confidence, we still trust them. 'You might be really untrustworthy, kind of rogue toward most people,' Krems says, 'but if I can trust you and you don't share my secrets, well, that's really valuable to me.' In other words, someone's reputation says a lot, but their actions toward you as an individual are important, too. Once trust is granted, people generally work hard to maintain it. 'When we're trusted, very few of us use that as an opportunity to exploit other people,' Kim says. Popular wisdom online and off encourages us to be on guard, that bad actors and scammers lurk around every corner, waiting to take advantage of the naive. Of course, betrayals occur and trust is sometimes broken. But a fascinating interplay between the lending and keeping of trust is that once we believe we've earned someone's trust, we become more trustworthy. 'Most of us, when we're trusted, we want to prove them right,' Kim says. 'We want to prove that we're worthy of the trust that we've been given. There's a self-fulfilling prophecy that occurs.' When trust is destroyed When it comes to breaches of trust, we tend to attribute these actions to incompetence or ill intent, Kim says. Someone spilled your secrets either because they're loose-lipped, or because they want to embarrass you or see you fail. In reality, a person's motives are never so clear-cut. Assuming someone acted out of malice 'is the kiss of death in any relationship, even longer-standing relationships,' Kim says, 'because it's almost impossible to overcome that kind of attribution.' The more familiar the person who betrayed your trust, the more likely you are to assume incompetence rather than malice because you're motivated to maintain the relationship. This is why people may make excuses for their partners after infidelity. Strangers or people with whom you have no intention of preserving a relationship, on the other hand, you might perceive as bad actors with no integrity. However, it's likely the betrayer didn't know what they were doing was wrong, Kim says. Maybe the person you were casually dating thought it appropriate to continue seeing other people, but you didn't. If your predetermined rules of engagement don't align with another's, you may see minor breaches of trust as a lack of integrity, Kim says. Trust is a ladder: each kept promise, each show of loyalty gives way to another. The recent trend toward increased isolation could also have implications for trust. Those who feel socially isolated become hypervigilant for social threats, like conflict and rejection, research shows — they see the world as a dangerous place and therefore go to great lengths to protect their own safety. If you see others in your community as inherently suspicious or dangerous, you're less likely to engage with them, furthering the cycle of isolation and loneliness. Ironically, though, lonelier people tend to be more trusting because they may yearn for social intimacy, even though they don't expect others to be trustworthy. They may fear their conversation partner is judging them or is dismissive, leading them to further withdraw. Distrust doesn't only apply to the perception of others — it extends to ourselves. If your trust has been betrayed enough times, you can begin to question your own judgment, wondering how you could have been so naive, missed the red flags. 'And that mistrust of ourselves can often lead to us just questioning whether or not we could ever trust again,' says licensed marriage and family therapist Moe Ari Brown, a love and connection expert at the dating app Hinge, 'whether or not we can even trust ourselves to make the right choice.' You might believe that the safest thing to do is to isolate to avoid pain. This impulse is a form of self-protection, Brown says. But without interrogating the source of the insecurity — often a past breach of trust — and some self-compassion that you (and those with whom you interact) are worthy of a vulnerable, honest relationship, you might find it difficult to open up. 'You can't make yourself feel trusting,' Brown says. 'It really is a process that happens through consistency over time — consistency on your part to remain open, even when you want to close.' How to extend just a little more trust But complete distrust creates a chasm between all people and closes off the ability to form meaningful relationships. If you struggle to see minor breaches of trust as evidence of human fallibility, you might assume everyone acts in bad faith and be more likely to prematurely end relationships. 'People who never trust also don't receive feedback,' Schilke says. 'If you don't make the first step, you don't learn who can be trusted or not. They're not even exposed to that learning experience.' High trusters, on the other hand, may get burned every now and then, but they gain information from the betrayal: I'll never do that again. Vulnerability and trust are mutually beneficial forces, each one feeding the other. Sharing a secret and trusting that the other person won't spill breeds more intimacy, greater closeness, research shows. When the secret-keeper proves trustworthy, you're more likely to confide in them again. The secret-keeper, meanwhile, is secure in their role as a confidante and trusts you more, too. To build trust, you've got to open yourself up to potentially being hurt. 'Being vulnerable to someone else is a first step,' Krems says. 'Yes, it can be scary, but that means that they might be more likely to be vulnerable to you then.' Blind trust isn't exactly ideal either. A healthy dose of distrust is what compels us to not leave our wallets unattended in a crowded bar and to lock our doors. A level of discernment is protective against these malicious forces. You don't need to extend full confidence in another to be a little more trusting. Trust is contextual — you trust your doctor to give medical guidance and a mechanic to service your car — and incremental. You may not want your new neighbor to pet sit for a week, but you do trust them to water your plants for a few days. Trust is a ladder in that way: each kept promise, each show of loyalty gives way to another.
