- #1
causalset
- 73
- 0
Have you ever wondered why what tastes good is often not healthy despite the fact that from evolutionary point of view the whole purpose of taste is to get you to eat what is healthy? I found an interesting explanation that probably none of you have thought of. On a grand scheme of things, what tastes better IS healthier:
1. Salad tastes better than dirt, and salad is healthier than dirt
2. Cookies also taste better than dirt and they, too, are healthier than dirt
Now, since the VAST MAJORITY of food available is dirt, ON A GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS the healthy things DO taste better than unhealthy ones. The problem is that correlation is not perfect. So one small "imperfection" in correlation is
3. Cookies taste better than salad BUT salad is healthier than cookies
Now, item 3 is VERY SMALL compared to 1 and 2. Just think about it: it is A LOT more unpleasant to eat dirt than any unpleasantness one would have eating salad. And it is A LOT worse to your health to eat dirt than it would be eating cookies,
But as "small" imperfection as it might be, the "imperfection" is all you are going to pay attention to. After all, since dirt is neither healthy nor tastes good, the dirt simply would never enter your mind. In order for item X to enter your mind, item X has to EITHER be healthy OR taste good or both. And here is what makes healthy food taste bad:
4. If item X is healthy (e.g. salad), it has a "qualification" to "enter human consideration" DESPITE bad taste
5. If item X tastes good (e.g. cookie) it has a "qualification" to "enter human consideration" DESPITE being unhealthy
This, together with the fact that
6. Most things taste bad and most things are unhealthy
7. Most things (e.g. dirt) never enters human consideration
8. The pattern exemplified by 1 and 2 is not perfect
provides an excellent statistical explanation why healthy things taste bad and unhealthy things taste good.
Lets put it this way: items 4 and 7 imply that
4, 7 ==> If an item X tastes bad and it enters human consideration, it MUST be healthy
Items 5 and 7 on the other hand imply that
5, 7 ==> If an item X is unhealthy and it enters human consideration, it MUST taste good
Finally, item 6 imply that
6 ==> Things that are BOTH healthy AND taste good are EVEN LESS common than things that are ONLY one OR the other (I mean, two "rare" things co-existing at the same time is even more rare)
(4, 7 ==>), (5, 7 ==>) and (6 ==>) above imply that AMONG THINGS THAT ENTER HUMAN CONSIDERATION there is "opposite correlation" between being healthy and tasting good
1. Salad tastes better than dirt, and salad is healthier than dirt
2. Cookies also taste better than dirt and they, too, are healthier than dirt
Now, since the VAST MAJORITY of food available is dirt, ON A GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS the healthy things DO taste better than unhealthy ones. The problem is that correlation is not perfect. So one small "imperfection" in correlation is
3. Cookies taste better than salad BUT salad is healthier than cookies
Now, item 3 is VERY SMALL compared to 1 and 2. Just think about it: it is A LOT more unpleasant to eat dirt than any unpleasantness one would have eating salad. And it is A LOT worse to your health to eat dirt than it would be eating cookies,
But as "small" imperfection as it might be, the "imperfection" is all you are going to pay attention to. After all, since dirt is neither healthy nor tastes good, the dirt simply would never enter your mind. In order for item X to enter your mind, item X has to EITHER be healthy OR taste good or both. And here is what makes healthy food taste bad:
4. If item X is healthy (e.g. salad), it has a "qualification" to "enter human consideration" DESPITE bad taste
5. If item X tastes good (e.g. cookie) it has a "qualification" to "enter human consideration" DESPITE being unhealthy
This, together with the fact that
6. Most things taste bad and most things are unhealthy
7. Most things (e.g. dirt) never enters human consideration
8. The pattern exemplified by 1 and 2 is not perfect
provides an excellent statistical explanation why healthy things taste bad and unhealthy things taste good.
Lets put it this way: items 4 and 7 imply that
4, 7 ==> If an item X tastes bad and it enters human consideration, it MUST be healthy
Items 5 and 7 on the other hand imply that
5, 7 ==> If an item X is unhealthy and it enters human consideration, it MUST taste good
Finally, item 6 imply that
6 ==> Things that are BOTH healthy AND taste good are EVEN LESS common than things that are ONLY one OR the other (I mean, two "rare" things co-existing at the same time is even more rare)
(4, 7 ==>), (5, 7 ==>) and (6 ==>) above imply that AMONG THINGS THAT ENTER HUMAN CONSIDERATION there is "opposite correlation" between being healthy and tasting good
Last edited: