upworthy
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 threeleaps 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 noplace 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.

Joy

5 more things that made us smile this week

We love to see single moms succeed, strangers reaching out to help, and parents pushing back against bigotry.

True

In a time where the world feels more divided than ever, we could all use a pick-me-up. With that in mind, we’ve scoured the internet to bring you five feel-good pieces of news and media that put a smile on our faces (and we bet it’ll put one on yours, too).

This week, we’re loving:

This woman’s life-saving good deed

Hockey fan Nadia Popovici was at a game in 2022 when she noticed something strange: an irregular mole on the back of Brian Hamilton, one of the team’s assistant equipment managers. Popovici had experience looking at cancerous moles during her experience volunteering in oncology wards, so she quickly flagged Hamilton down and warned him through the plexiglass that his mole looked cancerous. Hamilton had the mole biopsied—and found Popovici had been right. “She saved my life,” Hamilton said later in a press conference.

Subaru is sharing the love this holiday season

Who knew that buying a car could be an act of love? During the annual Subaru Share the Love® Event, getting a car means supporting the charities you love the most. With every new Subaru purchased or leased, Subaru and its retailers will donate at least $300 to local and national charities, including the ASPCA®, Make-A-Wish®, Meals on Wheels, and the National Park Foundation, among others. And here's another thing to celebrate: After 17 years of the Subaru Share the Love Event nearly $320 million has been donated to charity!

This dad's perfect response to anti-gay bigotry

@fitxander Some AWESOME shade from my dad 😂🌈 #gay #dad @claire_training ♬ Kings & Queens - Ava Max

Sometimes, when a person throws shade, you have to throw it right back. That’s what Xander’s dad did, when a neighbor told him that having two gay kids (Xander and his sister, Claire) meant that he “failed as a parent.” His response? To cover his entire house and yard with pride flags. Go, dad!

This perfect example of brotherly love

You’ve never seen something more heartwarming than this boy helping his little brother before school. According to a TikTok video uploaded by his mom, this amazing kid “always reassures his little brother he’s going to have a great day at school,” giving him a hug, a kiss, and some reassuring words. No, you’re crying.

This single mom who passed her bar exam on the very first try

Taking the bar exam to become a lawyer is tough—so tough that most people can’t do it on their first try, even after months of studying. Which is why this video is downright joyous to watch. In the video, single mom and TikTok user @yougonloverhi records her and her son’s reactions as they find out that she passed the California Bar Exam on the first try. Supermom!

For more reasons to smile, check out all the ways Subaru is sharing the love this holiday season, here.

Pop Culture

The Monkees' acapella Christmas song shows they weren't just funny, they could sing, too

They performed "Riu Chiu," a Spanish carol, on their 1967 Christmas special.

The Monkees singing "Riu Chiu."

The Monkees have a complicated place in the history of rock music. On the one hand, they scored some of the biggest hits of the ‘60s with “I’m a Believer,” “Last Train to Clarksville,” and “Daydream Believer.” On the other, they were a band manufactured in 1967 for a TV show that did little more than sing on their earlier records.

All that changed in 1967 when they wrestled control over their musical careers from the executives who kept them out of the studio and began recording their music with the “Headquarters” album. But even though they proved to be talented musicians, The Monkees were still branded as a prefabricated band whose success was owed more to session musicians and top-tier songwriters.

Anyone who doubts the talent of Mickey Dolenz, Michael Nesmith, Davy Jones and Peter Tork, look no further than a performance on The Monkees’ 1967 “Christmas Show” episode. Like every episode of The Monkees' TV show, this one featured a musical number. But this time, instead of a rock tune with a pre-MTV video of the band monkeying around, this featured the band singing an acapella version of “Riu Chiu,” a Spanish villancico that has attained some contemporary fame as a Christmas carol. The song is attributed to Mateo Flecha the Elder, who died in 1553.

The performance highlights the band’s unique vocal abilities that stem from different musical traditions. Before The Monkees, Dolenz was a rock singer, Nesmith was a country singer-songwriter from Texas, Tork was a folk musician and Jones was an English theatrical performer best known for his performance as the Artful Dodger in “Oliver!” But in this performance, their vocals blend perfectly.

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

The “Christmas Show” episode was memorable for the band’s outstanding vocal performance but also stands as one of the more memorable Christmas specials in TV history. Coming on the heels of the “Summer of Love,” the story is about The Monkees babysitting Melvin Vandersnoot, the hard-hearted child of an affluent family. After numerous attempts to get him into the Christmas spirit, the Monkees warm up his icy heart after showing him love, something all the money in the world can’t buy.

Vandersnoot, was played with incredible maturity by Butch Patrick, best known as Eddie on “The Munsters.”

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

The Monkees' television show would be canceled in 1968 and the band’s original run wouldn’t last much longer. But all four band members would remain in the music business. The Monkees would reunite in the late ‘80s after the show became popular in reruns and would continue to tour over the next four decades, although most of the time, it was without Nesmith. Nesmith would pursue a country career in the ‘70s, and even though his work received a lukewarm reception at the time, his innovative mixture of country music, humor and psychedelia has made him a pioneer in the alt-country genre. Nesmith died in 2021, shortly after touring with Dolenz.

Outside his work as the mainstay in Monkee reunions, Dolenz has starred in numerous theatrical productions and recently released an EP of R.E.M covers. He still tours as a solo act.

Davy Jones went on to perform in Monkee reunions and guest star on several TV shows, most notably on an episode of “The Brady Bunch,” where he was the target of Marcia Brady’s affection. He passed away in 2012.

Peter Tork was a mainstay of The Monkees’ live performances through numerous reunions and played in a band called Shoe Suede Blues. Tork died in 2019 after a long battle with cancer.

Hanson, singing acapella.

In “How Can You Mend a Broken Heart,” the 2020 documentary about the Bee Gees, Noel Gallagher of Oasis noted that there is something special about when brothers harmonize. He should know since he founded Oasis in 1991 with his brother Liam. “When you got brothers singing, it’s like an instrument that no one else can buy,” Gallagher said. “You can’t go buy that sound in a shop. You can’t sing like the Bee Gees because when you got family members singing together, it’s unique.”

The Bee Gees’ incredible success with his songs “Stayin’ Alive” and “More Than a Woman” proved that there was something to the idea that when siblings sing together, there’s nothing like it. It's probably because brothers may have similar vocal tones and more time to practice while growing up together. Bands like The Beach Boys, The Jackson 5, The Carpenters and the Jonas Brothers all got a leg up on the competition by practicing together since they were little kids.

Another group that’s been around for decades with brothers singing incredible harmonies has been Hanson. Sure, everyone remembers their massive success in the late ‘90s with the inescapable hit “MMMBop.” Still, they’ve developed a loyal following, have three top 20 albums on the Billboard charts and a rigorous touring schedule.

The big draw at their shows is their mix of Hanson hits, incredible covers and buttery harmonies. The Hanson brothers, Isaac, Taylor and Zac, proved the brothers-sing-best theory on stage by singing an acapella version of “Too Much Heaven” by the Bee Gees. What’s even more impressive is that the brothers did it without a microphone, which is a considerable risk because there’s a big chance of being disrupted by the audience.

Here is a version from March 2019, when they performed on stage in Australia, the Bee Gees' home country.

- YouTubeyoutu.be


According to Hanson on Stage, the group has performed the song 26 times live, beginning in 2013. The performance we shared is at the Sydney Opera House, which is probably why the band decided to perform without microphones. The opera house was designed to allow orchestras to be heard without amplification.

“Too Much Heaven” was initially released by the Bee Gees in 1979 as a contribution to the "Music for UNICEF" fund. The band donated all of the proceeds from the single to the charity. It’s a lush ballad featuring nine layers of three-part harmonies by Barry, Maurice and Robin Gibb. The song hit number one in the U.S. and Canada and would later make it to the band’s “Spirits Have Flown” album.

Here is the Bee Gees performing the song in 1993 on the BBC’s Pebble Mill One.

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

Hanson recently learned they are a big reason brother-and-sister duo Billie Eilish and FINNEAS got into the music industry. “We sat in our studio with Billie Eilish and FINNEAS when they happened to be in town, [with] their parents talking to us saying, ‘We basically decided they should make music ’cause we saw Hanson and you guys seemed like you were OK,'” Taylor told Billboard. “Like, that’s insane … and here they are, they’ve done incredible, beautiful work.”

Family

People are supporting a dad whose wife named their newborn while he went out for coffee

He didn't like the name, either. Shouldn’t it be a 50/50 decision?

via Canva

A mother smiles proudly after naming her baby.

Most people believe that both parents have an equal right to choose their baby’s name and that it should result from an agreement between both parties. That doesn't mean it’s always easy for both people to agree on the same name, but look, if you’re going to be a successful parent, you must know how to make compromises occasionally. Starting the job with your heels dug in does not bode well for anyone.

That’s why the following story is interesting. It shows what happens when a mother decides she can make the decision all by herself and what the fallout is like when her husband and his family find out. The story was recently shared on social media, and the commenters were shocked that she wasn’t sure if she was in the wrong.

"So, my (32F) husband (33M) and I just had our first baby girl a couple of weeks ago,” she begins the story. “We’d been going back and forth on names during my entire pregnancy. I really wanted to name her Eleanor after my late grandmother, who basically raised me when my parents weren’t around. She was my hero, and losing her last year was devastating. Honoring her felt deeply important.”

The woman’s husband preferred modern names such as Nova or Ember, which the mother just “couldn’t connect with,” so they never compromised.

baby names, parents of newborns, momsCaouple can't agree on baby names.via Canva

“On the day our daughter was born, while my husband stepped out to grab coffee, a nurse asked if we had a name for the birth certificate. I know I should have waited, but I was emotional and felt this rush of conviction. I just blurted out, ‘Eleanor.’”

When the husband returned with the coffee, he was “furious.”

“He said I’d blindsided him, robbed him of having a say, and that our daughter would hate her 'old lady' name. His family is also calling me manipulative. I feel terrible about the timing and how it all went down, but it’s not like we hadn’t discussed Eleanor before. I just feel like I honored a name that truly mattered to me when he wouldn’t budge.”

The mother asked the commenters if the father was overreacting because “we couldn’t find common ground.”

The commenters overwhelmingly supported the father in the situation. “You made a unilateral decision about your shared child,” the top commenter wrote. “You literally started her life by using her as a centerpiece for conflict with your husband. You also isolated her from your husband during the first major decision regarding her. What a terrible way to start her life.”

“‘…it’s not like we hadn’t discussed Eleanor before.’ You discussed it and he said no. Personally, I think the name Eleanor is lovely, but that’s not the issue,” another commenter noted. “You unilaterally made a decision —a decision a you knew your husband disagreed with—about your—both of your—child. Your giving birth doesn’t make this child any less his. Your husband and his family are absolutely right. You blindsided him."

baby names, parents of newborns, momsA newborn baby. via Canva

However, a few commenters believed whoever birthed the child had the right to pick the name, even if the father disagreed. “This might be the only daughter you have and if he can’t make it meaningful for you when you just risked your life for this baby and let you have the win then idk,” one of the few supporters of the mother wrote. ”I would let him pick the middle name. Trendy names are overrated.”

The woman who posted her story has yet to follow up and share what happened next, but let’s hope she took the commenters’ advice and apologized to her husband and changed the baby's name. Most agree that it's not fair for him to call his daughter a name he doesn’t like for the rest of their lives and it will always be a sore spot in their relationship. It’s best to bring a child into a family where everyone is on the same page and agrees on the things that matter most.

Yes. Sometimes it really is that easy.

Sure, there are parents out there who essentially see the entire world as their kid’s playground, but by and large most parents really don’t want to subject anyone else to the whims of their little ones. This goes for flights too. When a baby or toddler can’t sit still or won’t stop crying, it’s also incredibly stressful for the parents doing their best to keep things calm while essentially becoming in-flight pariahs. Fun.

In other words, a little empathy can go a long way. And that’s why so many are applauding a now-viral TikTok from Samantha Chadwick (@samanthachadwickk), which shows exactly how powerful a simple mindset shift can be.

In the clip we see Chadwick in her airplane seat, headphones on, as the onscreen text reads:

“There’s a baby on my flight that’s been crying non-stop for like two hours. She sounds so uncomfortable, and her parents are working so hard to calm her down. They are probably feeling so much anxiety and pressure right now. People behind them are talking about the baby screaming. So instead of complaining, I just put on my headphones and watched my show & could barely hear her. It’s that easy.”

TLDR: Babies cry. Parents are trying. Thank God for headphones. Keep on keepin’ on.

@samanthachadwickk Lets normalize being good humans while traveling 🫶🏼 #babycrying #babytravel #travel ♬ Use this sound to go viral - Andrew

Chadwick’s message clearly struck a chord with parents who have been in similar circumstances. Many had also been on the receiving end of kindness from strangers, and it was everything.

“As a mom THANK YOU the anxiety you get when your baby cries in places like that is through the roof.”

“My baby screamed for over an hour on a flight, I tried everything to calm him down and felt terrible. as a man was getting off he stopped and told me I did a great job. It really meant the world.”

“I wish EVERYONE was this kind. I ‘ll never forget my baby crying for an entire 6 hour flight after we got stuck in Vegas and I was exhausted and stressed and multiple sweet angels offered to hold my baby.”

Others could agree with Chadwick’s sentiments exactly.

“Those poor parents. Thank you for handling it like an adult.”

“I always feel bad for the parents, so stressful.”

Others echoed the notion that, unlike the parents actually dealing with the crying child, there are some things the other person can control.

“I am SO sensitive to sounds and get incredibly irritable about them. I bring earplugs/headphones bc that’s MY problem. I don’t understand ppl who try to blame others for their issues.”

“I always say as adults we have the option to wear headphones, that baby and parents are suffering more than anyone else on the plane!”

Listen, it’s understandable that people’s fuses have gotten shorter while traveling because, let’s face it, there’s a lot of questionable choices being made these days, and being cramped together in a steel box thousands of feet in the air only makes it more intolerable. But families have also been put through the ringer several times even before boarding the plane and would like a nice, peaceful flight as much as everyone else. We might not like the hand we’re dealt by the flights gods that day, but for those some odd hours, we’re all in this together. So let’s do our part.

Or as Chadwick put it, “Let’s normalize being good humans while traveling.”

Joy

'A Christmas Carol' summarized in Gen Z slang is giving hella holiday cheer

Comedian Richard Franks understood the assignment, no cap.

Richard Franks/Instagram, Book cover in the public domain

You've never seen "A Christmas Carol" summarized like this.

Since its publication in 1843, Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" has been retold in a zillion different ways, from serious stage plays to animated musicals to a Muppet movie to a horror miniseries. The role of Ebenezer Scrooge (or his character equivalent) has been played by famous actors such as Michael Caine, Bill Murray, Jim Carrey, Patrick Stewart, Albert Finney and Ryan Reynolds. Most of us are at least somewhat familiar with Tiny Tim and the ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Future, but the beloved holiday tale has never seen a plot summary quite like comedian Richard Franks'.

Franks has been delighting his audience with Gen Z slang summaries of Shakespeare's plays, and now he's doing the same with the classic Dickensian Christmas ghost story. Acting as a teacher in front of a classroom, Franks goes through the plot of "A Christmas Carol" in Gen Z speak with hilarious accuracy. Parents of a teens and young adults will likely recognize a lot of these terms, though they may not know what they actually mean.

Watch how naturally he speaks the lingo:

The best part is that it's actually a perfect summary of the story, though only Gen Z would fully understand it. Older folks may roll their eyes at how younger folks are changing how words are used, but every generation has its own version of language manipulation. The Boomers coined "groovy" and Gen X had "totally radical," after all. Millennials and Gen Z have a lot of crossover between them, but the youngsters have established their own flavor (much of which comes from African-American Vernacular English, or AAVE).

People of all generations are loving Frank's comic take on it all, though.

"You’ve done it again, bruh."

"I haven't finished watching it, I am already laughing. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂"

"Literally the only reason I understood what you’re saying is because I know the plot already, otherwise I’d be done for 😂"

"I love these sketches, they are just genius!! 🙌"

"This is Christmas cheer! (still laughing at 'full on Miley Cyrus and buy yourself flowers')"

If you watched the video in complete befuddlement because you aren't regularly around Gen Zers and have no idea what Franks is saying, here's a glossary to help you out with some of the terminology:

Straight up = truly

Vibes = feeling or mood

No cap = no lie/for real

Tea = gossip/information

Salty AF = very bitter

Throwing shade 24/7 = expressing contempt all day every day

Be giving = is giving off a vibe or feeling

Walking ick = undesirable person

Hella = extremely OR a large amount of (depending on usage)

Pulls up = arrives

Sesh = session

Massive simp = being excessively attentive or affectionate toward someone who's less interested

Nah, bruh = no thanks

Toxic mad riz = manipulative charisma

Ate and left no crumbs = did something perfectly

YOLO = You Only Live Once (same idea as carpe diem)

Bet = yes, I'm in

Slay = do something exceptionally well and with confidence

Low key = basically/undramatically

Understood the assignment = fully grasped the expectation and successfully met it

It's one thing to understand Gen Z's language and it's another to be able to speak it. Some parents like to mess with their kids by attempting to use slang terms and using them completely wrong—always a good laugh. One middle school teacher is on a mission to help parents out by sharing some Gen Alpha slang terms, and another teacher admits to making up slang words to try to convince his students that they're real.

Language is fun, and finding the humor in the way different generations use it makes for excellent comedy. If you want to see more of Richard Franks' Gen Z slang literature lessons, you can follow him on Instagram.