upworthy
Add Upworthy to your Google News feed.
Google News Button
More

3 things to watch out for when you're trying to pick the right life partner.

Aka how to avoid a frenzy of big decisions for bad reasons and messing up the most important decision of your life.

This post was originally published on Wait But Why.

To a frustrated single person, life can often feel like this:

And at first glance, research seems to back this up, suggesting that married people are, on average, happier than single people and much happier than divorced people.

But a closer analysis reveals that if you split up “married people” into two groups based on marriage quality, “people in self-assessed poor marriages are fairly miserable, and much less happy than unmarried people, and people in self-assessed good marriages are even more happy than the literature reports.”

In other words, here’s what’s happening in reality:

Dissatisfied single people should actually consider themselves in a neutral, fairly hopeful position.

A single person who would like to find a great relationship is one step away from it, with their to-do list reading: “Find a great relationship.” People in unhappy relationships, on the other hand, are three leaps away, with a to-do list of: “Go through a soul-crushing break-up. Emotionally recover. Find a great relationship.”

Not as bad when you look at it that way, right?

All the research on how vastly happiness varies between happy and unhappy marriages makes perfect sense, of course. It’s your life partner.

Thinking about how overwhelmingly important it is to pick the right life partner, though, is like thinking about how huge the universe really is or how terrifying death really is: It’s too intense to internalize the reality of it, so we just don’t think about it that hard and remain in slight denial about the magnitude of the situation.

Unlike death and the universe’s size, picking a life partner is fully in your control.

It's critical to be entirely clear on how big of a deal the decision really is and to thoroughly analyze the most important factors in making it.

So, how big of a deal is it?

Well, start by subtracting your age from 90. If you live a long life, that’s about the number of years you’re going to spend with your current or future life partner, give or take a few. No matter who you are, that’s a lot of time — and almost the entirety of the rest of your one existence.

(Sure, people get divorced, but you don’t think you will. A recent study shows that 86% of young adults assume their current or future marriage will be forever, and I doubt older people feel much differently. So we’ll proceed under that assumption.)

And when you choose a life partner, you’re choosing a lot of things.

You're choosing your parenting partner and someone who will deeply influence your children, your eating companion for about 20,000 meals, your travel companion for about 100 vacations, your primary leisure time and retirement friend, your career therapist, and someone whose day you’ll hear about 18,000 times.

Given that this is by far the most important thing in life to get right, how is it possible that so many good, smart, otherwise-logical people end up choosing a life partnership that leaves them dissatisfied and unhappy?

It turns out that there are a bunch of factors working against us:

1. People tend to be bad at knowing what they want from a relationship.

Studies have shown people to be generally bad, when single, at predicting what later turn out to be their actual relationship preferences. One study found that speed daters questioned about their relationship preferences usually prove themselves wrong just minutes later with what they show to prefer in the actual event.

This shouldn’t be a surprise — in life, you usually don’t get good at something until you’ve done it a bunch of times. Unfortunately, not many people have a chance to be in more than a few, if any, serious relationships before they make their big decision. There’s just not enough time. And given that a person’s partnership persona and relationship needs are often quite different from the way they are as a single person, it’s hard as a single person to really know what you want or need from a relationship.

2. Society has it all wrong and gives us terrible advice.

→ Society encourages us to stay uneducated and let romance be our guide.

If you’re running a business, conventional wisdom states that you’re a much more effective business owner if you study business in school, create well thought-out business plans, and analyze your business’s performance diligently. This is logical, because that’s the way you proceed when you want to do something well and minimize mistakes.

But if someone went to school to learn about how to pick a life partner and take part in a healthy relationship, if they charted out a detailed plan of action to find one, and if they kept their progress organized rigorously in a spreadsheet, society says they’re A) an over-rational robot, B) way too concerned about this, and C) a huge weirdo.

When it comes to dating, society frowns upon thinking too much about it, instead opting for things like relying on fate, going with your gut, and hoping for the best. If a business owner took society’s dating advice for her business, she’d probably fail, and if she succeeded, it would be partially due to good luck — and that’s how society wants us to approach dating.

→ Society places a stigma on intelligently expanding our search for potential partners.

In a study on what governs our dating choices more, our preferences or our current opportunities, opportunities wins hands down — our dating choices are “98% a response ... to market conditions and just 2% immutable desires. Proposals to date tall, short, fat, thin, professional, clerical, educated, uneducated people are all more than nine-tenths governed by what’s on offer that night.”

In other words, people end up picking from whatever pool of options they have, no matter how poorly matched they might be to those candidates. The obvious conclusion to draw here is that outside of serious socialites, everyone looking for a life partner should be doing a lot of online dating, speed dating, and other systems created to broaden the candidate pool in an intelligent way.

But good old society frowns upon that, and people are often still timid to say they met their spouse on a dating site. The respectable way to meet a life partner is by dumb luck, by bumping into them randomly or being introduced to them from within your little pool. Fortunately, this stigma is diminishing with time, but that it’s there at all is a reflection of how illogical the socially accepted dating rulebook is.

→ Society rushes us.

In our world, the major rule is to get married before you’re too old — and “too old” varies from 25–35, depending on where you live. The rule should be “whatever you do, don’t marry the wrong person,” but society frowns much more upon a 37-year-old single person than it does an unhappily married 37-year-old with two children. It makes no sense — the former is one step away from a happy marriage, while the latter must either settle for permanent unhappiness or endure a messy divorce just to catch up to where the single person is.

3. Our biology is doing us no favors.

→ Human biology evolved a long time ago and doesn’t understand the concept of having a deep connection with a life partner for 50 years.

When we start seeing someone and feel the slightest twinge of excitement, our biology gets into “okay let’s do this” mode and bombards us with chemicals designed to get us to mate (lust), fall in love (the Honeymoon Phase), and then commit for the long run (attachment). Our brains can usually override this process if we’re just not that into someone, but for all those middle-ground cases where the right move is probably to move on and find something better, we often succumb to the chemical roller coaster and end up getting engaged.

→ Biological clocks are a bitch.

For a woman who wants to have biological children with her husband, she has one very real limitation in play, which is the need to pick the right life partner by 40, give or take. This is just a shitty fact and makes an already hard process one notch more stressful. Still, if it were me, I’d rather adopt children with the right life partner than have biological children with the wrong one.


So when you take a bunch of people who aren’t that good at knowing what they want in a relationship, surround them with a society that tells them they have to find a life partner but that they should under-think, under-explore, and hurry up, and combine that with biology that drugs us as we try to figure it out and promises to stop producing children before too long ... what do you get?

A frenzy of big decisions for bad reasons and a lot of people messing up the most important decision of their life.

Let’s take a look at some of the common types of people who fall victim to all of this and end up in unhappy relationships.

Meet "Overly Romantic Ronald."

Overly Romantic Ronald’s downfall is believing that love is enough reason on its own to marry someone. Romance can be a great part of a relationship, and love is a key ingredient in a happy marriage, but without a bunch of other important things, it’s simply not enough.

The overly romantic person repeatedly ignores the little voice that tries to speak up when he and his girlfriend are fighting constantly or when he seems to feel much worse about himself these days than he used to before the relationship, shutting the voice down with thoughts like “Everything happens for a reason and the way we met couldn’t have just been coincidence” and “I’m totally in love with her, and that’s all that matters” — once an overly romantic person believes he’s found his soul mate, he stops questioning things, and he’ll hang onto that belief all the way through his 50 years of unhappy marriage.


Meet "Fear-Driven Frida."

Fear is one of the worst possible decision-makers when it comes to picking the right life partner. Unfortunately, the way society is set up, fear starts infecting all kinds of otherwise-rational people, sometimes as early as the mid-20s. The types of fear our society (and parents, and friends) inflict upon us — fear of being the last single friend, fear of being an older parent, sometimes just fear of being judged or talked about — are the types that lead us to settle for a not-so-great partnership. The irony is that the only rational fear we should feel is the fear of spending the latter two-thirds of life unhappily, with the wrong person — the exact fate the fear-driven people risk because they’re trying to be risk-averse.


Meet "Externally Influenced Ed."

Externally Influenced Ed lets other people play way too big of a part in the life partner decision. The choosing of a life partner is deeply personal, enormously complicated, different for everyone, and almost impossible to understand from the outside, no matter how well you know someone. As such, other people’s opinions and preferences really have no place getting involved, other than an extreme case involving mistreatment or abuse.

The saddest example of this is someone breaking up with a person who would have been the right life partner because of external disapproval or a factor the chooser doesn’t actually care about (religion is a common one) but feels compelled to stick to for the sake of family insistence or expectations.

It can also happen the opposite way, where everyone in someone’s life is thrilled with his relationship because it looks great from the outside, and even though it’s not actually that great from the inside, Ed listens to others over his own gut and ties the knot.


Meet "Shallow Sharon."

Shallow Sharon is more concerned with the on-paper description of her life partner than the inner personality beneath it. There are a bunch of boxes that she needs to have checked — things like his height, job prestige, wealth level, accomplishments, or maybe a novelty item like being foreign or having a specific talent.

Everyone has certain on-paper boxes they’d like checked, but a strongly ego-driven person prioritizes appearances and résumés above even the quality of her connection with her potential life partner when weighing things.

If you want a fun new term, a significant other whom you suspect was chosen more because of the boxes they checked than for their personality underneath is a “Scantron boyfriend” or a “Scantron wife,” etc. — because they correctly fill out all the bubbles. I’ve gotten some good mileage out of that one.


Meet "Selfish Stanley."

Selfish Stanley come in three sometimes-overlapping varieties:

1. The “My Way or the Highway” Type

This person cannot handle sacrifice or compromise. She believes her needs and desires and opinions are simply more important than her partner’s, and she needs to get her way in almost any big decision. In the end, she doesn’t want a legitimate partnership, she wants to keep her single life and have someone there to keep her company.

This person inevitably ends up with at best a super easy-going person, and at worst, a pushover with a self-esteem issue, and sacrifices a chance to be part of a team of equals, almost certainly limiting the potential quality of her marriage.

2. The Main Character

The Main Character’s tragic flaw is being massively self-absorbed. He wants a life partner who serves as both his therapist and biggest admirer, but is mostly uninterested in returning either favor. Each night, he and his partner discuss their days, but 90% of the discussion centers on his day — after all, he’s the main character of the relationship. The issue for him is that by being incapable of tearing himself away from his personal world, he ends up with a sidekick as his life partner, which makes for a pretty boring 50 years.

3. The Needs-Driven

Everyone has needs, and everyone likes those needs to be met, but problems arise when the meeting of needs — she cooks for me, he’ll be a great father, she’ll make a great wife, he’s rich, she keeps me organized, he’s great in bed — becomes the main grounds for choosing someone as a life partner. Those listed things are all great perks, but that’s all they are: perks. And after a year of marriage, when the needs-driven person is now totally accustomed to having her needs met and it’s no longer exciting, there better be a lot more good parts of the relationship she’s chosen or she’s in for a dull ride.

The main reason most of the above types end up in unhappy relationships is that they’re consumed by a motivating force.

That force doesn’t take into account the reality of what a life partnership is and what makes it a happy thing.

So what makes a happy life partnership? Visit Wait But Why for Part 2 of this post.

From Your Site Articles
More
Community

Stanford researchers find a single question could be the key to changing someone's mind

Curiosity goes a lot further than we might think.

discussion, debate, disagreement, conversation, communication, curiosity
Photo credit: Canva

How do you get someone to open their minds to another perspective?

The diversity of humanity means people won't always see eye to eye, and psychology tells us that people tend to double down when their views are challenged. When people are so deeply entrenched in their own perspectives they're refusing to entertain other viewpoints, what do we do?

Frequently, what we do falls into the "understandable but ineffective" category. When we disagree with someone because their opinion is based on falsehoods or inaccurate information, we may try to pound them with facts and statistics. Unfortunately, research shows that generally doesn't work. We might try to find different ways to explain our stance using logic and reasoning, but that rarely makes a dent, either. So often, we're left wondering how on Earth this person arrived at their perspective, especially if they reject facts and logic.

According to Stanford researchers, turning that wondering into an actual question might be the key.

discussion, debate, disagreement, conversation, communication, curiosity Questions are more effective than facts when it comes to disagreements.Photo credit: Canva

The power of "Tell me more."

Two studies examined how expressing interest in someone's view and asking them to elaborate on why they hold their opinion affected both parties engaged in a debate. They found that asking questions like, "Could you tell me more about that?” and ‘‘Why do you think that?" made the other person "view their debate counterpart more positively, behave more open-mindedly, and form more favorable inferences about other proponents of the counterpart’s views." Additionally, adding an expression of interest, such as, ‘‘But I was interested in what you’re saying. Can you tell me more about how come you think that?” not only made the counterpart more open to other viewpoints, but the questioner themselves developed more favorable attitudes toward the opposing viewpoint.

In other words, genuinely striving to understand another person's perspective by being curious and asking them to say more about how they came to their conclusions may help bridge seemingly insurmountable divides.

discussion, debate, disagreement, conversation, communication, curiosity Asking people to elaborate leads to more open-mindedness.Photo credit: Canva

Stanford isn't alone in these findings. A series of studies at the University of Haifa also found that high-quality listening helped lower people's prejudices, and that when people perceive a listener to be responsive, they tend to be more open-minded. Additionally, the perception that their attitude is the correct and valid one is reduced.

Why curiosity works

In some sense, these results may seem counterintuitive. We may assume that asking someone to elaborate on what they believe and why they believe it might just further entrench them in their views and opinions. But that's not what the research shows.

Dartmouth cognitive scientist Thalia Wheatley studies the role of curiosity in relationships and has found that being curious can help create consensus where there wasn't any before.

“[Curiosity] really creates common ground across brains, just by virtue of having the intellectual humility to say, ‘OK, I thought it was like this, but what do you think?’ And being willing to change your mind,” she said, according to the John Templeton Foundation.

discussion, debate, disagreement, conversation, communication, curiosity Curiosity can help people get closer to consensus. Photo credit: Canva

Of course, there may be certain opinions and perspectives that are too abhorrent or inhumane to entertain with curious questions, so it's not like "tell me more" is always the solution to an intractable divide. But even those with whom we vehemently disagree or those whose views we find offensive may respond to curiosity with more open-mindedness and willingness to change their view than if we simply argue with them. And isn't that the whole point?

Sometimes what's effective doesn't always line up with our emotional reactions to a disagreement, so engaging with curiosity might take some practice. It may also require us to rethink what formats for public discourse are the most impactful. Is ranting in a TikTok video or a tweet conducive to this shift in how we engage others? Is one-on-one or small group, in-person discussion a better forum for curious engagement? These are important things to consider if our goal is not to merely state our case and make our voice heard but to actually help open people's minds and remain open-minded in our own lives as well.

From Your Site Articles
communication
CommunityJoy
Love Stories

Leo Tolstoy's two-sentence diary entry from 1851 perfectly sums up young, impulsive love

Some experiences are totally relatable throughout time.

leo tolstoy, diary, horse, writer, famous journal entries
Public domain

Leo Tolstoy as a young man in 1848 (left), Tolstoy as an old man on a horse (right)

Leo Tolstoy's War and Peace and Anna Karenina are widely regarded as literary masterpieces, but Tolstoy wrote a lot more than just epic novels in his lifetime. The prolific author produced novellas, short stories, plays, folk tales, parables, and multiple books' worth of philosophical essays. He also kept a diary, which includes one of the shortest and most relatable stories of all time.

On January 25, 1851, the 23-year-old Tolstoy, who had not yet published any of his great works, wrote a two-sentence entry:

"I've fallen in love or imagine that I have; went to a party and lost my head. Bought a horse which I don't need at all."

It's a tale as old as time. You're young, you show up at an event, and love (or something like it) smacks you upside the head out of nowhere. As a result, you momentarily lose your mind and do something totally illogical and impulsive. So many people have been there, and it's somehow comforting to see someone so well known experience it so long ago.

At the same time, there's the hilarity of not quite knowing whether he's referring to falling in love with a woman or with a horse, because it really could be either. We know he loved horses. But did he meet a woman who made him lose his mind so much that he impulsively bought a horse? Or was he introduced to a horse he fell in love with at first sight?

There's also a delightful irony in a writer known for the length of his largest work (War and Peace is over 1,000 pages) telling such a concise story. Just two sentences, and people are like, "Yep, totally relatable."

Other famous brief diary entries throughout history

Aaron Burr, the famous slayer of Alexander Hamilton, once wrote in his private journal about blowing a wad of money:

"London, February 1, 1812. Have spent 14 shillings and 6 pence magnificently; i.e., like an ass."

That was not a lone entry, but rather the first line of one, and still quite notable on its own.

People tend to venerate famous historical figures to the point of forgetting they were still just human beings, as susceptible to the human condition as the rest of us. But this diary entry from Charles Darwin, the "father of evolution," having a bad day is a good reminder:

"But I am very poorly today and very stupid and hate everybody and everything."

And President Theodore Roosevelt famously wrote one of the most tragically brief diary entries on February 14, 1884, after his wife and mother both died within hours of one another. He wrote a large "X" at the top of the page, followed by the words, "The light has gone out of my life."

teddy roosevelt, u.s. president, diary entry, theodore roosevelt, history, famous diary entries Theodore Roosevelt's diary entry after his wife and mother died within hours of each other. upload.wikimedia.org

And perhaps the shortest famous diary entry of them all came from King Louis XVI of France on July 14, 1789. That was the day the Bastille was stormed, kicking off the French Revolution, and the king simply wrote, "Rien," which translates to "Nothing." The entry has often been pointed out as a funny bit of irony, or even as proof of how out of touch the king was with his subjects, but in reality, it was simply an indication that he hadn't gone hunting that day. Still pretty wild in hindsight, though.

Is diary keeping a lost art?

It used to be common for people to keep written diaries or journals, but that habit has largely fallen by the wayside in favor of digital archives and social media. We can now look back through our phones' camera rolls to recall what we did, and when and where we did it. But is that the same thing? Are we missing the written expression of our thoughts and feelings in real time?

Perhaps. A 2006 study of 107 young adults found that spending 15 minutes journaling twice in one week appeared to improve mental health. Participants were split into three groups: one asked to journal about a stressful event, one asked to draw, and a control group. Those who journaled saw a significant reduction in symptoms such as depression, anxiety, and hostility, especially if they were already distressed. Most of the participants had seldom journaled before.

Many other studies have confirmed the mental and emotional benefits of keeping a journal. Perhaps it's time for the ancient habit to make a comeback?

From Your Site Articles
diary
Love StoriesJoy
Science

Her groundbreaking theory on the origin of life was rejected 15 times. Then biology proved her right.

Lynn Margulis had the audacity to challenge Darwin. And we're lucky she did.

lynn margulis, lynn margulis symbiosis, biology, scientific breakthroughs, darwin, darwinism, women in science
Facts That Will Blow Your Mind/Facebook

A photo of Lynn Margulis.

Throughout her prolific and distinguished career, biologist Lynn Margulis made several groundbreaking contributions to science that we take for granted as common knowledge today. For example, she championed James E. Lovelock’s “Gaia concept,” which posited that the Earth self-regulates to maintain conditions for life.

But by far, her most notable theory was symbiogenesis. While it was first written off as “strange” and “aesthetically pleasing” but “not compelling,” it would ultimately prevail, and completely rewrite how we viewed the origin of life itself.

In the late 1960s, Margulis wrote a paper titled "On the Origin of Mitosing Cells," that was quite avant-garde. In it, she proposed a theory: that life evolved through organisms merging together to become inseparable.

In essence, cooperation is the driver of life, not competition and domination. This directly went against Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” principle that was considered gospel in scientific circles. Margulis’ paper was rejected by fifteen journals before getting accepted into the Journal of Theoretical Biology.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Time would be on Margulis’ side, however. By the late ‘70s and early ‘80s, research proved that the two major building blocks of plants and animals, chloroplasts and mitochondria were at one time independent bacteria. This solidified the fact that on a biological level, connection trumps autonomy for longevity. And now that fact is written in textbooks, with no real story of the adversity it overcame to get there.

While it is customary for most new scientific theories to be met with criticism, especially those that completely shift the current narrative, many have noted that sexism played a key part in Margulis’ initial lack of acceptance. On more than one occasion, she herself had hinted that women were seen as mothers and wives first, and scientists second. She recalled that while married to fellow scientist Carl Sagan that “Carl would finish his sentence, unperturbed” while she was expected to “handle all the duties of a 1950s housewife, from washing dishes to paying the household bills.”

And yet, Margulis would have other ideas that were controversial that had nothing to do with her gender. Most famously, she did not believe that AIDS was caused by HIV, and instead believed it was cause by a syphilis-causing type of bacteria, despite there already being decades of research proving otherwise. That view was seen as an endorsement of AIDS denialism, which undermined prevention and treatment effort. Then later in life, Margulis became a vocal proponent of 9/11 conspiracy theories suggesting government involvement the in Twin Towers attacks.

And yet, perhaps this is one of those “you gotta take the good with the bad” situations. Margulis’ inherent contrarian nature gave us both these unfounded, even harmful stances, in addition to entirely new paradigms that altered our understanding of life itself.

And if nothing else, it illuminated the need for science to include multiple points of view in order to unlock the truth. It seems life is, after all, about coming together.

From Your Site Articles
history
ScienceNature
Joy

Guy kicks a single rock for 200 days to see if it'll become a perfect sphere. Here's how it went.

This guys takes the "go kick rocks" phrase very, very seriously.

shirtzenpantz, thrift store, portland, rocks, science, fun science, science experiment, wholesome, positive news
via @shirtzenpantz/Instagram

Day 5 of Christosphere's journey vs Day 200

When Portland-based Owen Gail isn’t selling thrifted clothing at his Shirtzenpantz store, he’s outside kicking rocks. Well, one rock in particular—a granodiorite named “Christosphere.”

Christosphere didn’t start off living up to his name. In fact, 200 days ago, he was 800 grams heavier, and much more angular. Attempting to bring a little bit of attention to his newly secured, yet fairly tucked away new brick-and-mortar, Gail recorded himself kicking Christosphere every day to see if that would make him perfectly round.

To say that Christopshere has been on a journey would be an understatement. He’s been kicked a whopping 210 collective miles across nine states, and was even thrown into the Detroit Lake on day 96. Gail apparently had a connection with the Detroit Lake Dam, which uses a special filter to collect rocks, so Christopshere was eventually recovered.

By day 200, nearly anyone would say that Christopshere, now with no edges to speak of, is indeed a sphere simply by looking at him. But to really put it to the test, Gail gathered 15 of Oregon’s “finest sphere experts” to discuss, Socratic-seminar style, as to whether or not that was an accurate assessment. Though two videos of the discussions have been posted so far, Christosphere’s fate remains hanging in the balance.

Regardless, Christopshere has proven to be a worthy mascot for Shirtzenpantz, due to his Internet fame. According to local news outlet Willamette Week, tourists come specifically seeking him out, and poems about him are offered for a discount. Business has been so good, thanks in part to Christopshere, that Gail and his twin brother were able to open up another location with a different gimmick: the “world’s largest” pair of pants.

Gail is now uniquely tasked with employing another person to kick an angular, volleyball-sized new “twin” to Christosphere in an attempt to get it to spherical proportions as well.

But beyond being a thoroughly weird and entertaining science experiment, (and an extremely clever marketing tactic), Christopshere is providing a bit of inspiration, especially back in May 2025 when Gail’s grandmother (and Shirtzenpantz regular), Juanita likened Christopshere’s journey to something incredibly human.

“This rock is in transition, just like many of you might be. Or like me, I'm transitioning to being old,” she said in the clip, holding Christopshere in her hands. “But here’s the thing: Before you become something different, you have a time when you are confused and maybe you don't know what day it is or what you want to do when you graduate from college and everyone is on your case.

“Take that time when you're being kicked around and decide that is part of the process,” she wisely concludes.

That’s right. Come for the rock kicking, stay for the heartwarming elderly wisdom. You’ll be in good company.

“Never knew when i started following the rock-kicking page that i’d be in my room sobbing at 1am some random wednesday night listening to grammy doling out actual wisdom about life 😭”

“I needed that. I can be a Katiesphere.”

“All right so here's my journey. I watched whatever video was day five of you kicking this rock around. That was fed to me by the algorithm. I was like all right what else does he got? So I went to your most recent which is this video that I'm commenting on. You just took me on one hell of a journey sir. I did not expect to get schooled. Give that old lady a hug for me.”

“What began as a stupid rock being kicked has become something I did not anticipate. I was not ready for such a deep and profound moment.”

You honestly never know what delightful, lucky, and insightful surprises are in store simply by following your whimsy. Perfect circle or not, Christopshere is offering a perfect lesson.

From Your Site Articles
science
JoyCommunity
Joy

Americans share the stereotypical foods non-Americans think they eat in gobs, but never really do

"They bring up deep fried butter when nobody I know has EVER ate it."

american food, americans, americans eating, american diet, favorite american food
Photo credit: Canva

Two women eat cheeseburgers from a plate.

American food is filled with staples that are part of a thoroughly American diet. A 2025 YouGov survey on the most popular American dishes reported the following as the top five beloved foods in the U.S.: French fries; mashed potatoes; hamburgers; steak and baked potatoes; and cheeseburgers.

While most of these are indeed "stereotypical" American foods, non-Americans may often assume a lot about what Americans really eat. Grilled cheese? You bet. But fried butter? Think again. Kind of like how Americans think Chicken Parm is Italian.

In an enlightening conversation on Reddit, Americans were quick to correct non-Americans about the stereotypical foods they assume Americans adore. Here's what they had to say:

- YouTube www.youtube.com

"When people talk about food in the US (especially when calling it unhealthy) they bring up deep fried butter when nobody I know has EVER ate it. Even my dad, who, has traveled around a lot and eaten tons of stuff, has never had a bite." - velmiraZ

"Fruitcake enters the chat. And sloooooooowly digests, since who knows how long it's been sitting around…" - inter-realm

"Mayonnaise is eaten, even in what I'd consider large amounts here (potato salad, macaroni salad etc.), but I never understood why we got the stereotype for it. Every time I've been to Europe I've had to freaking scrape globs of mayo off of things I've ordered, and I like mayo. And absolutely nothing compares to the amount of mayo used in East Slavic countries. I've enjoyed those foods don't get me wrong, but every time I see 'Americans and their mayonnaise' I'm like ????" - currymuttonpizza

"I am from the states and in the 50's gelatin-based molded salads was a thing. My grandma in law makes Jello salads for every occasion. The worst was Jello with frozen peas, mayo, maraschino cherries, carrots and cheese. The ones that are just Jello and fruit are typically edible. I seriously never knew this was an actual thing until I married into a midwestern family." - flyislandbird, Difficult_Walk_6657

@marcosfunhouse

He has RISEN #vintage #recipe #easter #jello #jello4jesus

"Every time I see one of those pics of an 'American Food Section' from a European grocery store, they always have marshmallow fluff. I don't think I've ever used marshmallow fluff other than maybe making Rice Krispie Treats once or twice." - kywildcat44

"Spray cheese. I don't think I've ever eaten it, and can't remember ever seeing it in anyone's home. Someone is buying it, because it's available in stores, but it's not a commonly consumed food for most people." - kinetic_cheese

"In the US, it's probably Twinkies. I know people use the word Twinkies to cover a bunch of snack cakes, but I don't actually know anyone who's eaten a Twinkie in the last year." - Old_Studio_6079

"Mine is more City specific but Chicago and Deep Dish Pizza. It's really not that popular of a choice for most people. It's good once in a long while but 98% of the time myself and most others prefer a thin tavern style pizza. Deep Dish is really only popular with tourists." - wellohwellok

"Any of the novelty deep fried fair food. Oreos, twinkies, etc. You really only see them at fairs, and people have maybe one. I was with some friends and we split a fried Oreo between 3 people because we wanted to see what it tasted like, but one bite was enough." - DoMBe87

- YouTube www.youtube.com

"From the US: Sh*t on a Shingle, aka chipped beef on toast. It's a depression era struggle meal, and while I'm sure some people here do eat it, I never have and I've never met anyone who has, and I grew up in a poor part of the US." - Visible_Amphibian570

"Another American but coming from Iowa, corn. Sweet corn is great, but we don't really eat it constantly. Usually my family had it as a 'summer's almost over' treat. Most corn is dent corn which is used for flour, animal feed, and other corn products but directly, you can't just waltz into a field and eat it from the cob. Unless its sweet corn, which is more a small scale treat than industrial agriculture." - -Im_In_Your_Walls-

"It's not a USA think but a Colorado thing: Rocky Mountain Oysters. You often find them on the appetizer menu of restaurants that serve game meats like elk and bison. But we Coloradans mostly don't eat them, we just order them for out-of-state visitors and tell them they're a Colorado delicacy." - HudsonBunny

"Hamburgers and hotdogs. For us anyway, it's more an occasional cookout food, attending a live ball game food, or convenience on a road trip or rest stop, but not something we eat daily or even weekly." - BustThaScientifical

From Your Site Articles
american food
JoyCulture
Trending Stories