Rationality;

I was watching this documentary program—one of those psychological studies where they observe people's reactions.

The setup involves a man (the subject) and a woman sitting across from one another.
They sit there, locked in intense eye contact over the table.

Then, the woman places a bowl of soup in front of him, which the researchers immediately identify as his absolute favorite.

Suddenly, she pulls a toilet brush out of a Target bag—it’s brand new, mind you—and plunges it straight into the broth.

Naturally, the man loses any appetite for the meal.

Does anyone here actually believe that "dipping" wouldn't be an issue? Is it truly a rational way to view things to suggest otherwise?

I honestly think there are way easier ways to make someone lose their appetite entirely😉

goldenhound32 said:A woman takes a toilet brush—fresh out of its factory packaging, mind you—and dips it right into a pot of soup.
The person being tested refuses to eat the soup.
Does anyone else feel like "dipping" shouldn't be a dealbreaker? Isn't it a pretty reasonable way to look at it (since you're still eating)?

Based on that study, I’d definitely be in the majority who wouldn't touch that soup. That "reasonable" perspective would only kick in if hunger finally outweighed the sheer disgust of eating something that was contaminated by a toilet brush (even a brand-new nylon one), especially when food is supposed to be more than just fuel—it's an experience. Plus, there's always that nagging thought: how do we know some chef didn't pull a similar prank behind the kitchen doors before serving us our meal? We'd eat it up without a second thought, but we'd never know. 🙂

viviana said:That sort of rational perspective would only manifest under circumstances where hunger finally overrides one's sense of repulsion.

Don't you think that logic is flawed? That whole "only under certain conditions" caveat...

Quincy:

Then there is the second matter: we have no way of knowing if someone, say at a diner, made a similar joke behind the kitchen partition before serving us the soup, yet we simply consume it without a second thought. 🙂

I suspect someone here might have watched Fight Club.

goldenhound32 said:Do you think that’s unreasonable? This whole "only under certain conditions" thing...

Honestly, I don't think it's unreasonable at all. It would only be crazy if they handed me a bowl of soup with a paintbrush in it while I was starving—I'd probably eat the damn brush at that point.

But when I actually have a choice? I'm going to pass on anything that requires me to fight through pure sensory disgust just to get through it...

What's your take on it? 🙂

viviana said:whenever I have the option, I’ll decline anything that requires the mental exertion of overcoming my visceral aversion to it...

For me, that supposed "exertion" isn't even worth calling effort.
Take those people you see out on the street in the bright orange robes—you know, the ones chanting—and if your first, knee-jerk reaction (which, let's be honest, depends heavily on the neighborhood you grew up in) is to smirk or roll your eyes, that's just instinct. But a second later, once you actually give it a moment of thought, everything settles back to normal.

goldenhound32 said:For me, that kind of "effort" isn't even an effort.
Take those people you see out on the sidewalk singing—you know, like the Hare Krishna folks? Your first reaction (and maybe it’s just me, or depends on what neighborhood you're in) might be to roll your eyes or smirk. But a second later, once you actually think about it, it's totally fine.

😕 It isn't for me. Honestly, I love seeing those people out there; it actually makes my day.

I’m not quite sure how your example ties back to that food experiment you mentioned. To me, prejudice and pure physical revulsion feel like two completely different things. Judging someone's character is one thing, but the reaction you described in your first post regarding that experiment? That's a whole other ballgame.

I feel like this whole experiment is really just proving how much our subconscious can override our logic. Even when you know deep down it’s just a concept, if someone tells you a brush is meant for the toilet, your brain immediately makes that gross connection to food, and suddenly, you're repulsed. To me, that kind of visceral reaction feels completely natural.
Besides, I’m pretty picky about what goes into my meals—I don't like unnecessary additives, so I’d probably turn up my nose at the soup too!

clarice said:Even if you logically know it's just your subconscious acting up, your brain still tells you that brush is for the toilet. It’s totally natural to feel a wave of disgust when you start associating it with food.

Exactly. Everything we encounter triggers some sort of memory or learned association. That mental image can be wildly different from one person to the next because of how we link things together. So, it makes perfect sense that someone would refuse to eat something that reminds them of a bathroom—especially if they have other options on the table.

It is irrational to believe that logic dictates most of our choices. This is especially true when we deal with matters where past experiences have already stirred our emotions. 🙂

viviana said:😕 Not me. I actually find it quite uplifting seeing people like that out on the streets. It’s something I genuinely enjoy witnessing.

The core issue is whether you grasped my actual point.

Quincy:

Prejudices regarding certain groups are one thing, but the visceral repulsion tied to that specific experiment you detailed in your opening post—well, that is an entirely different matter altogether.

The common thread here is simply a total failure of reason.

clarice said:Besides, I’m not one for unnecessary additives in my food, so I’d probably pass on the broth too!

I think I follow your logic, though your reasoning seems somewhat contradictory. Even salt isn't strictly necessary for survival, yet I suspect you'd find that broth quite palatable if someone had bothered to season it first.

restlesshound40 said:it is quite irrational to assume we make most of our decisions based on logic.

And who exactly are we talking about here?
I can speak for myself, perhaps, but I cannot claim to know what drives everyone else.

Quincy:

especially when dealing with matters where we already possess some level of experience and have already allowed emotions to cloud our judgment. 🙂

Does that particular caveat—that part about being "especially" prone to it—actually apply to this specific situation?

goldenhound32 said:Who, me?
I can speak for myself, but I cannot speak for others.

I mean humans as a species. (Or people, if you require more precision😉)
I do not know you personally; I am generalizing based on psychological studies.

Does that "especially" part apply to this situation as well?

Yes, why not? Eating and using the restroom are daily necessities. In fact, we even have that old American saying, "Don't talk with your mouth full," which highlights how much those two activities are seen as opposites. (Or at least, that is how they are perceived in our culture, to be perfectly precise)

restlesshound40 said:sure, why the hell not.

I honestly can't wrap my head around where you think I've been "coloring my emotions" regarding the subject at hand.

goldenhound32 said:I think I get what you’re getting at, even if your logic seems a bit backwards. You’re saying salt isn't strictly "necessary"—meaning you'd probably still eat soup even if someone had salted it beforehand.

I'm not being contradictory; salt is essential because without it, the soup is just tasteless water.🙂
But honestly? If someone dropped a piece of roast beef into my soup without warning... I wouldn't touch it.

goldenhound32 said:I don't see where you were "coloring with emotions" regarding the topic at hand.

Perhaps "emotions" was the wrong term; it implies sentimentality. My mistake.😬 I meant visceral reactions, such as disgust.

If an illustration is required, consider this: imagine you love calamari. You eat too much of it and fall ill. You spend the entire night getting sick. Afterward, you can't even look at it. Does the mere thought of it not make you feel unwell?

clarice said:I’m not being contradictory; salt is an absolute necessity for soup, otherwise, you're just eating tasteless liquid.🙂

In that case, she really ought to rephrase that to "except for whatever I personally deem necessary," because there's someone over here (me) who never puts any salt in their soup at all. :|

Taylor Swift said:take this scenario—you absolutely love calamari. you overindulge on it until you feel physically ill. you spend the entire night getting sick, seeing nothing but pieces of squid. after that, you can't even stomach the thought of it ever again. just the mere idea makes you nauseous.

I know people who have actually gone through that, yeah.
For a while, I was eating calamari every single week—two or three times a week, really—and then suddenly, I just stopped. Now I’m stuck wondering if it was simply because I got bored with it and wanted to branch out, or if it was some deep-seated sense of revulsion. (Though, I'm honestly not sure if it's the same kind of disgust we're talking about regarding the toilet brush thing.) The weird part is, whenever there isn't any chicken available, I find myself eating calamari again, which leaves me even more conflicted about whether these two feelings are actually the same thing or not.