Lifestyle
Control issues? These two simple words could help
“The single best thing” Mel Robbins has ever done began with a stressful moment on her son’s prom night.
The bestselling author, former attorney and host of one of the world’s most popular podcasts is talking about her latest book, “The Let Them Theory: A Life-Changing Tool That Millions of People Can’t Stop Talking About ” (Hay House).
The book — which demystifies ancient concepts from Stoicism, Buddhism and Greek philosophy for modern, plugged-in, multitasking audiences — arose that evening, when Robbins says she was “being a complete control freak” and “micromanaging every detail.”
Shelf Help is a wellness column where we interview researchers, thinkers and writers about their latest books — all with the aim of learning how to live a more complete life.
She was agonizing over the teens’ lack of dinner plans and the fact that it was raining and they might show up to the dance soaked. She was on her phone and shouting to other parents and trying to take control of the situation when her daughter repeatedly insisted that she let the kids do it their way.
Let them grab tacos instead of going to a restaurant. Let them ruin their shoes in the rain. “It’s their prom, not yours,” she said to Robbins.
After “like the 11th time,” it finally sunk in, Robbins said, and she felt herself relax.
After sharing the experience with her 8.3 million Instagram followers, and then to her legions of loyal podcast subscribers, the enthusiastic response made it clear: She needed to write a book. In December 2024, so came “The Let Them Theory.” In an interview with Robbins, Oprah Winfrey called it “one of the best self-help books I’ve ever read.”
The Times spoke with Robbins about how the simple phrases “let them” and “let me” can help us feel less stressed and more empowered, and help us better navigate the challenges of dating, family relationships and social media.
This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.
(Mel Robbins author of “The Let Them Theory” (Jenny Sherman))
How did you realize that “let them” could work beyond the prom?
I’m the kind of person that’s always wanted to know how to be more stoic and let go, yet I’ve never really been able to apply philosophy when I’m already emotionally triggered. The way it hit me was at the prom.
From that point forward, any time either life was frustrating me or my husband did something that was annoying, or my mother — I just started saying, “Let them,” and I noticed that it was immediate peace in a way that I had never experienced in my life.
All that I’m doing is reminding people of what they know to be true. The issue of trying to control things that aren’t yours to control, and how it just creates stress for you, this is the fundamental law of human beings that has been around since the beginning of time.
There are two parts to the theory: let them and let me. Why is it important to use both?
The second part is the more important part, because the second part is where you actually cue yourself and remind yourself that your life is your responsibility. When you say, “Let me,” you remind yourself that in any situation — and this is literally the teaching in “Man’s Search for Meaning,” [Holocaust survivor] Viktor Frankl’s work — the only thing that’s in your control is your response to what’s happening. You can control what you think about what’s happening. You get to choose what you do or don’t do in response. And you get to choose how you process your emotions. That’s what you get to control and that’s where your power is.
You say the hardest part of “let them” is learning to feel raw emotions without immediately reacting. A lot of times, we’re already reacting before even thinking “let them.” How do we do this?
I’m still working on it. I think you deserve a gold medal if you have the presence of mind to even say, “I would like to be less reactive moving forward.” Just being aware that it’s a skill and it would benefit you and bring more peace to your life, that is the first step. Part of the reason we’re so reactive is because we feel this sense that we’re trapped because we’ve given so much power to other people. Every time you say, “Let them,” even if it’s after the outburst, you’re still diffusing the emotion. What I have found in my own life, because [I’m] a very emotional person, is that the more I said it, the more you close the distance between the impulse to flip somebody off and actually saying, “Let them.” And you’ll get to a point where every time you say it, you’re literally using it as a tool to catch that nervous system or emotional response.
How can we use “The Let Them Theory” to prevent that compare-and-despair feeling we often get from social media?
It took me a long time to flip from this really insecure, scarcity mind-set, where I truly believed that if somebody else got something that I wanted, it meant they were winning and I lost. I didn’t understand the beauty of the world we live in, which is the things that you want in life — whether it’s success or it’s money or it’s happiness or it’s friendship — these things are in limitless supply.
It took me too long to understand that I’m not actually competing against somebody else in the game of life. I’m playing with them. If my friend is able to do [something], then it is evidence that I — with work and with time and with patience — can do that for myself too.
You start to realize that other people are not standing in your way; you’re doing that to yourself. You’re the one using comparison to stop yourself. You’re the one telling yourself it’s never going to happen. You’re the one telling yourself that you’re not good enough or that you can’t figure it out. When you stand in your own way, you miss out on the fact that literally every single person that has something that you’re interested in or that you want in life, they can actually show you how to get it. They show you what’s possible.
Let’s talk about “let them” as it relates to dating. You say let them show us who they are, how responsive they are. But given today’s digital landscape, how do we use “let them” and still be present enough to allow for flirtation and mystery in relationships?
It’s understanding what part of the dating cycle you’re personally in instead of constantly trying to guess what part of the cycle the other person is in. If you’re in that phase where you’re just meeting a ton of people, really staying focused on, “I’m cool with playing the field right now.” But there’s going to come a point in time where you’re no longer interested in that, or where you say to yourself, “I actually like this person and I don’t want them to see other people.”
When you recognize that you’re no longer in that space of wanting to be casual, the mistake that everybody makes is we now give power to the other person we’re interested in. We now become detectives trying to figure out when they feel the same way we do. That’s when you start chasing the potential. That’s when you start overanalyzing everything you do. That’s when you start to cling, and you start to get weird, and you start to pretend that things are still casual, but you’re secretly looking to see if their Hinge profile is still up.
That’s where you lose power. Because the better thing to do when you no longer just want to be in the casual space is to have a conversation. They could say no, but this is how you respect yourself.
It seems like saying “let them” and “let me” requires self-confidence and self-compassion. How do we get there?
You don’t get there by hoping it comes. You have to use the tools. One of the reasons why we don’t have these conversations — or even something more subtle, like you have a roommate or sister or a parent who’s just negative or passive-aggressive and you’ve put up with it for years — is it takes courage to say to yourself, “I don’t want to have to deal with this, so I’m going say, ‘Let them,’ because I’m going to stop trying to manage their mood.”
It takes a lot of compassion and grace for yourself. And then you do the “let me” part, which is: Let me remind myself that I get to choose how much time and energy I spend with this person.
You say this is especially hard with loved ones. Why is that?
These people have known you since you were born, and they have expectations about who you are and who you should be and what should happen in this family.
Think about family like a spiderweb. Any tap on the web reverberates through everybody. Anytime you start to let your family have their opinions, or let them have their fears, or let them have their expectations and let them have their concerns — which they have, because they’ve always had them about you — when you start saying “let them” and create space, you’re widening out the space between the webs. People don’t like that.
Then you say: Let me live my life in a way that makes me happy; let me pursue a career I really want to pursue; let me love the person that I love. Those decisions actually force other people to have to deal with their own expectations and opinions. But that doesn’t mean you have to change what you’re doing in order to appease them or meet their opinions.
How do we apply the theory without becoming passive or aloof or waiting for a big blowup?
One of the things I see from people is like, “I’m supposed to let people abuse me? I’m supposed to let them disrespect me?” I’m like, no, that’s probably happening right now. Because we, especially in families and with loved ones, explain away bad, disrespectful and abusive behavior.
(Maggie Chiang / For The Times)
If we are in a family system or a relationship where there has been a cycle of emotional abuse or a cycle of narcissism, the psychology of it is very, very challenging, because you keep holding on to the hope that someone’s going to change. We keep a fantasy alive in our heads versus learning how to live with the reality in front of us. You start to realize, every time you say, “Let them” and “Let me,” that the power isn’t in what other people are doing. The power is in your values and how you respond.
TAKEAWAYS
from “The Let Them Theory”
Lifestyle
Remembering Isiah Whitlock Jr. : Bullseye with Jesse Thorn
Jamie McCarthy/Getty Images
At the very end of 2025, we lost Isiah Whitlock Jr. He was 71. He had been a working actor for a very long time. He got his first TV parts in the 80s, but started acting on stage well before then. Whitlock performed in movies like Goodfellas and Da 5 Bloods. And was well known for playing State Senator Clay Davis on The Wire.
When we talked with Whitlock in 2021, he was promoting the show Your Honor. A legal thriller starring him and Bryan Cranston that aired on Showtime for two seasons. During the conversation, he chatted with us about landing a role in Goodfellas, how he came to embrace his signature catchphrase, playing complicated characters, and much more.
A version of this interview originally aired in January, 2021
Lifestyle
A$AP Rocky and Rihanna What’s The Big Frigin’ Difference?!
Power Couple
A$AP Rocky and Rihanna
What’s The Big Frigin’ Difference?!
Published
Walk up to these two snazzy snaps ASAP! Can you score the minor changes made to power couple A$AP Rocky and Rihanna?!
The fashion-forward duo hit the town bundled up and blockin’ out the haters! No need to be shady — just find the discreet differences 😎!
HINT: There are THREE differences in the above A$AP ROCKY and Rihanna photos!
Lifestyle
An AI judge, a time-traveling 10-year-old and more in theaters
Chris Pratt stars as detective Chris Raven in Mercy.
Amazon MGM Studios
hide caption
toggle caption
Amazon MGM Studios
Contradictions abound in movie theaters right now: one of the screen’s most athletic leading men spends his entire thriller strapped to a chair; one of its most articulate (in English) leading ladies spends hers speaking French, an optimistic kid-flick with a rainbow theme depicts a world literally on fire … and more.
Haunting international features, an Oscar-nominated Kate Hudson and a table tennis thriller are still playing, too.
Mercy
In theaters now
YouTube
The year is 2029, and an artificial intelligence entity called Mercy sits as judge, jury and executioner over certain Los Angeles criminal proceedings in director Timur Bekmambetov’s thriller. Detective Raven (Chris Pratt), an alcoholic and also apparently a poster boy for LA law enforcement, after having brought in Mercy’s first conviction, awakens at the film’s start, hungover and shackled to the “Mercy Chair” which will kill him if he’s found guilty. Facing him on screen is Judge Maddox (Rebecca Ferguson), an AI jurist who icily informs him that he has 90 minutes (cue on-screen timer) to prove he didn’t kill his wife, an event of which he has no memory. He’s to do this by availing himself of the city’s vast archive of surveillance and bodycam footage, drones, phone records and the like. He can also make a few calls to family and colleagues.
So, not RoboCop, but RoboCourt — kind of a nifty premise, except that no one involved seems terribly intent on interrogating the central notion of AI fallibility. “Human or AI,” says Raven in a spectacularly unpersuasive copout, “we all make mistakes.” Still, the setup allows Bekmambetov to indulge his fondness for storytelling with doorbell cams, iPhone screen grabs and computer searches, all edited frantically to make the use of so much low-res footage less annoying. A smartly choreographed chase sequence finally widens the focus and turns the last act of Mercy mercifully brisk. But the overall effect is derivative and secondhand — almost literally Minority Report, conceived not by the director of the 2012 film Lincoln, but by the director of Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter.
The Testament of Ann Lee
Now in wide release
YouTube
Ambitious, stylized, intense, and thoroughly unorthodox, Mona Fastvold’s religious biopic tells the story of Shakers founder Ann Lee (a wild-eyed, fiercely committed Amanda Seyfried) as a full-scale musical drama. That’s not to say there are finger-snapping tunes. The score adapts 18th century Shaker spirituals, and the choreography involves the thrusting limbs and clawing fingers of the seizure-like dancing that earned this puritan sect of “Shaking” Quakers their nickname.

We meet Ann as a pious youngster more interested in spiritual matters than matters of the flesh. Marriage to a man who enjoys inflicting pain during sex, and the deaths of her four children in infancy lead Ann to the conclusion that lifelong celibacy is among the keys to salvation. With the help of her younger brother (Lewis Pullman), she finds adherents to a religious philosophy that also emphasizes gender equality and simple living, and leads them to found a utopian, crafts-based community in America. Director Fastvold and her co-writer Brady Corbet (the couple flipped roles from last year’s The Brutalist) serve up Ann’s spiritual journey in ecstatically musical terms, which is at once distancing and … well, ecstatic, though it pales a bit over the course of two-and-a-quarter hours.
Arco
In limited theaters
YouTube
A little boy travels from a distant future where humans live in the clouds to a more recognizable, droid-filled 21st-century future in Ugo Bienvenu’s charmingly cautionary debut feature. The director and co-writer, a graphic novelist, imagines the distant future in utopian terms — families living in colonies that look like arboretums atop giant artificial trees, from which they leap to travel through time on the leading edge of rainbows. Children under 12 aren’t allowed to time-travel, a restriction that strikes our 10-year-old title character as arbitrary, so little Arco swipes his sister’s rainbow-patterned cape and takes his first leap, which doesn’t go quite as planned. He ends up in 2075, where droids perform many functions — teaching in schools, policing the streets, delivering packages — and whole neighborhoods have been outfitted with clear glass domes as protection against out-of-control wildfires and extreme rainstorms. Iris, who is about Arco’s age, follows a rainbow and discovers Arco has crash-landed in the woods. She takes him home and they bond, though there’s still the problem of getting him back to his home.
The story is action-packed and, especially when a wildfire rages nearby, decently suspenseful. Though the film incorporates a pretty dark vision of where the planet is headed ecologically, it leans heavily into solutions (those domes), so the story seems unlikely to seriously scare kids, its target audience. It’s also uncommonly beautiful, with animation that suggests the work of Hayao Miyazaki, with a slightly harder, more realistic edge.
Sound of Falling
In limited theaters
YouTube
Eerie, and not always signposted in ways that make its connections comprehensible, director and co-writer Mascha Schilinski’s dark portrait of a German family farm and the women who inhabit it across four generations could be described as a cinematic poem of yearning and guilt. It includes tales of Fritz, a boy of draft age during World War I who loses a leg, and the sterilization and abuse of female servants. There’s also a girl’s erotic fixation on Fritz some years later, a disco-loving young woman abused by an uncle in 1980s East Germany as his son pines for her, and a friendship between a tween from the family in modern reunified Germany and an intense stranger whose mother has died. One little girl participates in the family’s odd tradition of “death photos” — posed post-mortem photos with loved ones — then sees a photo that appears to foretell her own death. Not cheerful, in short. Also, not always coherent, but beautifully shot, and compellingly acted.
A Private Life
In limited theaters
YouTube
Jodie Foster, elegantly bilingual as Lilian, a French psychiatrist, is the most compelling reason to see director and co-writer Rebecca Zlotowski’s decorous but mildly idiotic psychological mystery. Receiving word that her patient Paula (Virginie Efira), appears to have taken her own life, Lilian attends a memorial service and has odd enough interactions with Paula’s daughter (Luàna Bajrami), and husband (Mathieu Amalric) that she begins to suspect foul play. She contacts her ex-husband, who’s also her ophthalmologist (Daniel Auteuil) because she can’t stop tearing up — her tears spatter a man’s hand on the subway. She then contacts a medium (Sophie Guillemin) who hypnotizes her and successfully stops the tears, but also allows her to access a dream state in which she and Paula were violinists and lovers playing in a Paris orchestra during the Nazi occupation, with Lilian’s estranged son (Vincent Lacoste) among the Nazi militiamen.
None of this makes any more sense in the film than it does as I’m describing it, nor does the crime-solving odyssey she and her ex embark on (which would almost certainly result in both of them losing their medical licenses). Foster is sublime, and she has such easy chemistry with Auteuil that their scenes together make temporary sense of unlikely plot detours. If all of this were being played for laughs it might have had a Hitchcock-meets-Only-Murders-in-the-Building vibe, but it isn’t, and it doesn’t.
-
Sports6 days agoMiami’s Carson Beck turns heads with stunning admission about attending classes as college athlete
-
Illinois2 days agoIllinois school closings tomorrow: How to check if your school is closed due to extreme cold
-
Detroit, MI1 week agoSchool Closings: List of closures across metro Detroit
-
Pittsburg, PA5 days agoSean McDermott Should Be Steelers Next Head Coach
-
Lifestyle1 week agoJulio Iglesias accused of sexual assault as Spanish prosecutors study the allegations
-
Lifestyle5 days agoNick Fuentes & Andrew Tate Party to Kanye’s Banned ‘Heil Hitler’
-
Sports4 days agoMiami star throws punch at Indiana player after national championship loss
-
Politics1 week agoNoem names Charles Wall ICE deputy director following Sheahan resignation