“You can’t have everything. Where would you put it?” — Steven Wright

“A diamond is merely a lump of coal that did well under pressure.”

“By working faithfully eight hours a day you may eventually get to be boss and work twelve hours a day.” — Robert Frost

“I am so clever that sometimes I don’t understand a single word of what I am saying.” — Oscar Wilde

"If you think you are too small to make a difference, try sleeping in a room with a mosquito." — African proverb

“Opportunity does not knock, it presents itself when you beat down the door.” — Kyle Chandler

“It takes less time to do things right than to explain why you did it wrong.” — Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

“I cannot afford to waste my time making money.” — Louis Agassiz

The Power Imbalance That Causes Most Fights in Relationships.
A simple equation might fix them.
Reviewed by Ekua Hagan

KEY POINTS-
Power imbalances may be at the core of relationship conflicts.
Complex tasks may be hard to assign, but authority over simple tasks can be given to one partner at a time.
Respecting a partner's authority over their small tasks may lead to more harmony when taking joint responsibility for complex tasks.

In Principles of Social Psychology, the authors discuss authority and power. They write1: "One of the fundamental aspects of social interaction is that some individuals have more influence than others. Social power can be defined as the ability of a person to create conformity even when the people being influenced may attempt to resist those changes."

In this discussion, power and authority are nearly synonymous, except that some argue that authority carries with it an ongoing need for “legitimacy” via "influence" in the eyes of others.

From a mathematical standpoint, they form an “identity” in that:
Authority = Power
Power = Authority
If you have one, then you automatically have the other, so long as you maintain the "legitimate influence" over others to respect your boundaries.

I believe this arises from allowing them the dignity to seize authority over their personal resources. When absent, it leads to a "power imbalance."

Many studies surround power, authority, responsibility, and legitimacy in the corporate world. Still, we might wonder if the rules are different when it comes to intimate relationships.

Corporate power has necessary hierarchies for task assignment and completion. In contrast, no person in their right mind would enter a lasting intimate relationship without the expectation of interpersonal equality and fairness.

Two romantic partners bring a host of personal resources to the joint pursuit of goals in the form of their time, energy, ideas, and freedom of decision. They also bring monetary earnings known to be the source of many a conflict between couples.

The former kind of resource is immeasurable in currency, while the latter is measurable.

As we look at a major source of fighting between intimates, we might take note of the confusion that can arise between the two types of resources leading to inadvertently cutting down the other's sense of dignity. As I once overheard a person at a neighboring restaurant table say: "I'm not your employee! I'm your spouse!"

In the din of blaring cartoon voices on the television, screaming children who refuse to get dressed for school, and the upcoming meeting at the office to attend on time—after struggling through rush hour traffic—which partner was to do what responsibility may get scuttled and result in mutual blame.

What if there was a simple tool for clearing up the vast number of conflicts between partners over their authority, legitimacy, responsibility, and accountability—their power imbalances?

The tool we need is an “equation of power balance” that is also a "mathematical identity" equation.

The Equation of Power Balance Is "Responsibility = Authority"

In the Bible, Jacob famously wrestled an angel and was injured for life as a reminder that being granted authority must also carry responsibility (in his demands for a blessing).

As Julia Romanenkova writes2: "Authority is the power delegated by senior executives to assign duties to all employees for better functioning. Responsibility is the commitment to fulfill a task given by an executive. Accountability makes a person answerable for his or her work based on their position, strength, and skills."

Authority assumes responsibility, and responsibility necessarily must carry authority to get tasks completed successfully.

There is no agreement in a romantic relationship, marriage, or friendship where one person is an executive employing a “subordinate.” In these intimate relationships of partners or friends, they came to the relationship in the first place as equals, but poor boundaries erode this equality.

If responsibility demands your personal resources to complete a task, then good boundaries dictate that you inherently own authority over your resources.

Partners also expect sharing of joint responsibility and spending of resources to achieve their mutual, complex goals. That joint effort won't work without mature boundaries around personal versus shared resources.

What Are Your Psychological Resources Worth?
Doing the dishes must be worth something.

Transporting children must be worth something.
Researching the logistics of the next vacation must be worth something.

But what?
One possible solution to the lack of a "currency of psychological resources" rests in the time, energy, and decisional freedom we surrender to have employment. Employment equals dollar amounts that we do then turn and invest into the goals of the relationship.

Therefore, spending dollars on a task equals the time, energy, and surrender of personal freedom we originally “spent” in employment to get the dollars.

Suppose most people with good boundaries find personal dignity in wielding authority over how those personal dollars—and the personal resources that generated them—are spent. In that case, we might conclude, "If I have 100 percent responsibility for a task, then the exact value I invest in completing it should exactly equal the authority I have over why, when, and how it is completed.”

A problem arises in large and complex responsibilities such as a domicile or child-rearing over the long term. In such as these, the division of responsibility is split to something between less than 100 percent/0 percent and 50 percent/50 percent.

Psychological Currency Exchange
Even if it were possible to know every detail in the value of labor, time, energy, and money each partner contributes to the relationship, it might not be physically possible to share every thought or action they've expended for the benefit of the relationship or family.

For example, one partner may say, “I pay the entire mortgage every month. Can’t you take care of all the kids’ medical appointments?”

Another might say, “You don’t even know what it’s like to clean an entire house daily amid constant noise and screaming, then find it just as dirty and messy again within hours. There’s no monetary amount that you can place on that!”

To which the more financially resourced partner might say, “Well, how much is that worth? $10,000? $100,000? This is the most expensive housecleaning and childcare I have ever heard of!”

While many costs can be measured in money, many contributions toward the couple's goals cannot have a dollar value assigned to them, and couples that get lost in this circular argument are missing the point.

Using "Responsibility = Authority" Responsibly
Trying to devise methods of tabulating joint resource value —the percentage split of the complex responsibilities (overall house, child, or financial management)—can be fruitless.

Instead, try using this principle on small tasks that require 100 percent responsibility of one partner at a time, where that partner may assume 100 percent authority over the task's "why, when, and how."

When the other partner disagrees or impinges on the boundaries of accomplishing the task, this can serve as a talking point on values later, much like in the techniques of the Gottman Method3.

Remember how we covered that legitimacy and influence support authority? If someone intrudes on your boundaries, they may not realize this lowers the legitimacy of their own authority.

It negates some of their influence on you.
Disrespect of your authority over small tasks then lowers their relational authority with you in the complex tasks.

When a partner intrudes on the boundary of your authority/responsibility, the degree of intrusion may reveal the degree of narcissism in the person. The ego defenses of George Valliant4 and the character virtues of Martin Seligman's positive psychology of "emotional intelligence" give us precise guidelines and measures of this.

If we respect a partner's authority/responsibility over their small tasks, it may lead to more harmony in the joint responsibility/authority in the complex tasks that bond us as "on the same page" in life and love.

Zach Brittle of the Gottman Institute writes5: "The thought of relinquishing these cherished gifts is difficult to accept. I know, because I’m not that great at it. I love feeling strong and right. I love winning. But I can tell you with certainty that when it comes to relationships, if one partner is 'winning,' then both partners are losing. That’s why it’s critical that you (both) learn to accept your partner’s influence."

In fact, like Gottman’s “bids” in marriage—when many little opportunities for granting due authority for a partner's small tasks arise—they might add up over years “in the emotional bank account” to help save or preserve the partnership or friendship.

ALCOHOLISM-
What We Get Wrong About the Risks of Drugs and Alcohol.
Perceptions of risk and our complex relationship with drugs and alcohol.
Reviewed by Gary Drevitch

KEY POINTS-
Drugs and alcohol are a major cause of avoidable death across the world.
We tend to overestimate the prevalence of deaths due to drugs and alcohol but underestimate our personal risk of harm.
Understanding the cognitive biases that drive our perceptions may help to form healthier habits.

Every year, countless deaths are attributed to the misuse of drugs and alcohol. When it comes to understanding the risks, though, there are often discrepancies between our perceptions and reality. Research has suggested that we tend to overestimate the prevalence of deaths due to drugs and alcohol but underestimate our personal risk of harm. This post will explore the psychology behind risk perceptions, examining some of the biases we typically experience with respect to both societal and individual levels of risk.

Primary bias in risk perception
The primary bias in risk perception refers to the tendency to overestimate uncommon risks and to underestimate common risks. One of the seminal figures in risk research, Paul Slovic, found that we typically overestimate the risk of dying from homicide or natural disaster, but underestimate the likelihood of dying due to diabetes, cancer or stroke. New research, from myself and colleagues at Northumbria University, surveyed a representative sample of 1,500 UK adults to assess perceptions of risk relevant to different causes of death. We found that, on average, people in the UK overestimated the proportion of avoidable deaths accounted for by drugs and alcohol by 10% and underestimated the proportion of deaths accounted for by cancer by 16% and cardiovascular disease by 14%.

Previous academic research has suggested that this tendency to overestimate the prevalence of deaths due to drugs and alcohol may be down to the media's sensationalized reporting of high-profile overdoses and binge drinking. An exaggerated media focus may foster the belief that drugs and alcohol are a widespread and imminent societal threat. Despite the extensive harm caused by drugs and alcohol, the number of deaths is substantially lower than what the public perceives. Overestimating these risks at a societal level can lead to a misplaced focus on moralising addiction and punishing problematic users, instead of providing a more measured public health response. This overestimation can also lead to unnecessary fear and anxiety surrounding drug and alcohol use, which can further contribute to the stigmatization of individuals struggling with addiction.

Personal risk
Despite overestimating the prevalence of deaths due to drugs and alcohol, we still tend to underestimate our personal level of risk. Participants in our recent study believed that drugs and alcohol were the most prevalent causes of avoidable death in the UK, but were highly unlikely to lead to their own death. This may be due to the belief that death from drugs and alcohol is something experienced by other people, and the feeling that we are somehow immune to the risks. Drugs and alcohol were also believed to be the most controllable causes of death, suggesting that we generally feel that we can manage the potential risks, but others can’t.

Research on cognitive biases may help to explain the discrepancy between our perceptions of drugs and alcohol at the societal and personal levels of risk. The fundamental attribution error refers to our tendency to attribute the behaviour of others to inherent personality traits, rather than to external circumstances and environmental factors. Simply put, when someone else does something bad, we assume it’s because they’re a bad person. When we do something bad, we attribute our actions to circumstances outside of our control. When applied to drugs and alcohol, this bias can lead us to view substance misuse as a moral failing or weakness of character, rather than recognizing the complex interplay of genetic, environmental, and psychological factors that shape behaviours.

Self-awareness
Research has consistently shown that people tend to underestimate their alcohol consumption: Almost half of the alcohol sold in the UK is unaccounted for, based on the consumption figures given by drinkers. In an international study of drinking habits, the tendency to underestimate personal consumption of alcohol was found to be common in the U.S., Canada and Australia, and highest among UK males. Some problematic drinkers often look to validate their own habits by pointing to societal norms that are themselves excessive or unhealthy. Others discount the potential harms of heavy consumption through misplaced bravado, or feel that those who warn of the risks of alcohol are trying to stop people from enjoying themselves. However, it is worth noting that in the U.S., alcohol kills more people than all other drugs combined. Habits may be changing, with recent trends suggesting that Gen Z members are drinking less than people in previous generations. Whether we choose to drink, moderate, or abstain, it is important to reflect and assess our own habits for what they are and for what they contribute to our health.

Cognitive biases, sensationalist media reports, and cultural norms that obsess over the dangerous appeal of drugs and alcohol all come together to drive a wedge between our perceptions and reality. Research suggests that we typically overestimate the prevalence of substance-related deaths. That said, our tendency to attribute undesirable behaviors to the moral failings of others, whilst blissfully turning a blind eye to our own overindulgence, should prompt us to be more mindful of our habits. Greater self-reflection of the underlying biases that drive our perceptions may help us to make wiser decisions and to avoid the risks of problematic drinking and the increasing tendency to self-medicate.