Do you drink the hot sauce directly? Do you put so much on that it provokes a choking or wincing reaction? Then I don’t think it’s comparable.
ETA: Oh, one more rhetorical quesiton: Do you act surprised that there are people who aren’t willing to pay insane prices to injest burritos with so much hotsauce that they have to suffer through eating it?
Because that’s what it would take for me to have the same perplexion as I do about alcohol.
I don’t—I’d choke or wince, and I don’t want that. But I still like hot sauce on my burrito.
What I am arguing—and I believe this was Unknowns’ argument—is that the effect of increasing rate of intake is not indicative of whether a substance is enjoyable at the lower rate of intake. I wouldn’t eat a tray of lemon squares, but I’d eat one piece.
What I am arguing—and I believe this was Unknowns’ argument—is that the effect of increasing rate of intake is not indicative of whether a substance is enjoyable at the lower rate of intake. I wouldn’t eat a tray of lemon squares, but I’d eat one piece.
Okay, give me a little credit here. I “get” that much—I mean, even a milkshake will give you a brainfreeze.
The point is (and I admit I’ve had a hard time expressing it with examples because of the confounding factors), people strangely start to use a definition of “enjoy drinking X” that expands to cover aspects that they admit are very displeasurable. Hard liquors will induce the coughing reflex (the beginning of it), for example, even at very low rates of consumption.
This would seem to dominate the experience, but then, even in the midst of what is quite clearly painful, they enjoy it—and are somehow able to discern “good” hard liquor from “bad” hard liquor.
Taking the whole experience into account, I can accept that there’s a lot to like—just not the act of drinking.
Might dill pickles be a useful example? I had to be coerced into trying them several times before I came to find them edible, but I enjoy them now, and there’s not much if any status involved there.
I’m not sure that those factors can be fully, or even partly, separated from status signaling. For example, I expect that I could tell the difference between different kinds of pickles, and develop a favorite among the brands that exist. I have no particular reason to do so, and if I did, I wouldn’t talk about it, but if pickles became trendy, and the pickle companies started making subtly-different types to satisfy the demand for signaling tools, I probably would at least try the varieties and pick a favorite. (I have a favorite brand of mayonnaise, after all, and am that picky about which brand of Macadamia nuts I’ll eat.)
You assume that the bad effects will dominate, but I’m not sure that would be the case. If you like the taste itself enough, that might balance the bad effect. And “good” hard liquor might (and does, in my limited experience) reduce the bad effects.
Further, comparatively few people like (neat) hard liquor, and the direct unpleasant effects are significantly reduced in beer, wine, and mixed drinks.
I agree with you that status considerations will often make people inclined to get an Irish Cream when they’d prefer a milkshake or fool themselves into thinking that expensive wine tastes better. But you’re apparently making a strong claim (nobody really likes the taste of alcoholic beverages), on weak evidence.
The point is (and I admit I’ve had a hard time expressing it with examples because of the confounding factors), people strangely start to use a definition of “enjoy drinking X” that expands to cover aspects that they admit are very displeasurable. Hard liquors will induce the coughing reflex (the beginning of it), for example, even at very low rates of consumption.
And hot sauce will induce a burning sensation at even very low concentrations of capsaicin. Like BDSM, sometimes people actually do like that.
Right—sometimes. Not “the overwhelming majority of the adult population, which also happens to get high while doing so.” It’s the ubiquity, not just the strangeness, that confuses me.
You’re sure of that ubiquity part? I just think you should put off endorsing complicated beliefs until you are sure they are based on good data. In this case, I believe that means a proper sociological study.
Edit: Such a study may also make it easier to confirm the extent of various proposed motivations.
I don’t think we’re going to need a sociological study to verify that the vast majority of adults drink, and claim to like it when they do. That’s all I meant by ubiquity. I should have said “commonness” or something equally awkwardish.
No, you seem to be claiming that they’re doing it for the taste. They do it in spite of the taste, or indifferently to the taste, and add sweet flavors to mask it. However, people can grow to like the taste over time, and some of the flavors in the taste are good by themselves, though not as good as, say, a chocolate milkshake.
You also seem to be assuming that a taste has to be repulsive or delicious, instead of just neutral, or all right in certain contexts, or occasionally desirable.
No, you seem to be claiming that they’re doing it for the taste.
Er, no, that’s pretty much the opposite of what I’m claiming. I’m claiming that they say they do it for the taste, but mainly (or solely) want the psychoactive effects.
I’m claiming that they say they do it for the taste
Sorry for getting it wrong. Anyway, I don’t think they say that they primarily do it for the taste, which is an empirical question.
I think they say they “like” it, and they mean they like the overall experience, and you’re interpreting that to mean that they like the taste. Or they say they like the taste because they grew to like it over time, or because they mix it with other flavors, and you’re interpreting that to mean they primarily drink it for the taste.
Do you act surprised that there are people who aren’t willing to pay insane prices to injest burritos with so much hotsauce that they have to suffer through eating it?
I am not surprised when someone does pay to do such a thing to their burrito.
I think it is quite common for people to eat food that is hot enough to cause discomfort or even pain, at least in some cultures. The uncomfortably-hot curry is a British tradition that often goes hand in hand with the consumption of beer. In my non-scientific personal experience willingness to eat (and enjoy) food with levels of heat that cause discomfort correlates somewhat with wealth/status—it can be seen as a marker of openness to experience and embracing cultural diversity.
People get desensitized to hot sauce after a while; it takes more to cause discomfort in someone who routinely eats hot sauce than in someone who doesn’t.
I’m fond of spicy food. (My father, who I suspect is a supertaster, isn’t.)
People do get desensitized to hot/spicy food over time but I think people who enjoy the sensation tend to increase the dosage to compensate. Speaking from personal experience, I still like hot food to burn slightly, it just takes more chilli than it used to to achieve that. The burning/discomfort isn’t an unfortunate side effect of the pleasant taste of chillis for me, it’s an essential component of the enjoyment of eating hot food. I’ve heard that the reason people enjoy spicy food is that chilli stiumlates pain receptors and causes the release of endorphins and it is the endorphin release that people crave but I don’t know if that is true.
People do get desensitized to hot/spicy food over time but I think people who enjoy the sensation tend to increase the dosage to compensate.
Yes, that’s what I meant.
Another thing I’ve noticed is that some hot peppers have good flavors in addition to the burning sensation (jalapenos, for example), but others seem to be practically tasteless apart from it.
...then why do I put hot sauce on my burrito?
Do you drink the hot sauce directly? Do you put so much on that it provokes a choking or wincing reaction? Then I don’t think it’s comparable.
ETA: Oh, one more rhetorical quesiton: Do you act surprised that there are people who aren’t willing to pay insane prices to injest burritos with so much hotsauce that they have to suffer through eating it?
Because that’s what it would take for me to have the same perplexion as I do about alcohol.
I don’t—I’d choke or wince, and I don’t want that. But I still like hot sauce on my burrito.
What I am arguing—and I believe this was Unknowns’ argument—is that the effect of increasing rate of intake is not indicative of whether a substance is enjoyable at the lower rate of intake. I wouldn’t eat a tray of lemon squares, but I’d eat one piece.
Okay, give me a little credit here. I “get” that much—I mean, even a milkshake will give you a brainfreeze.
The point is (and I admit I’ve had a hard time expressing it with examples because of the confounding factors), people strangely start to use a definition of “enjoy drinking X” that expands to cover aspects that they admit are very displeasurable. Hard liquors will induce the coughing reflex (the beginning of it), for example, even at very low rates of consumption.
This would seem to dominate the experience, but then, even in the midst of what is quite clearly painful, they enjoy it—and are somehow able to discern “good” hard liquor from “bad” hard liquor.
Taking the whole experience into account, I can accept that there’s a lot to like—just not the act of drinking.
Might dill pickles be a useful example? I had to be coerced into trying them several times before I came to find them edible, but I enjoy them now, and there’s not much if any status involved there.
Dill pickles don’t have nearly the same perplexity factors that alcohol does, so I don’t think they’re a useful example.
People aren’t ultra-particular about which dill pickles they like, beyond them not looking gross.
People don’t claim to be able to discern all the differences.
The taste of dill pickles doesn’t serve as a convenient excuse for getting high.
Dill picklers aren’t regularly used to get high, and aren’t in danger of being banned or overregulated.
You get the point.
I’m not sure that those factors can be fully, or even partly, separated from status signaling. For example, I expect that I could tell the difference between different kinds of pickles, and develop a favorite among the brands that exist. I have no particular reason to do so, and if I did, I wouldn’t talk about it, but if pickles became trendy, and the pickle companies started making subtly-different types to satisfy the demand for signaling tools, I probably would at least try the varieties and pick a favorite. (I have a favorite brand of mayonnaise, after all, and am that picky about which brand of Macadamia nuts I’ll eat.)
You assume that the bad effects will dominate, but I’m not sure that would be the case. If you like the taste itself enough, that might balance the bad effect. And “good” hard liquor might (and does, in my limited experience) reduce the bad effects.
Further, comparatively few people like (neat) hard liquor, and the direct unpleasant effects are significantly reduced in beer, wine, and mixed drinks.
I agree with you that status considerations will often make people inclined to get an Irish Cream when they’d prefer a milkshake or fool themselves into thinking that expensive wine tastes better. But you’re apparently making a strong claim (nobody really likes the taste of alcoholic beverages), on weak evidence.
And hot sauce will induce a burning sensation at even very low concentrations of capsaicin. Like BDSM, sometimes people actually do like that.
Right—sometimes. Not “the overwhelming majority of the adult population, which also happens to get high while doing so.” It’s the ubiquity, not just the strangeness, that confuses me.
You’re sure of that ubiquity part? I just think you should put off endorsing complicated beliefs until you are sure they are based on good data. In this case, I believe that means a proper sociological study.
Edit: Such a study may also make it easier to confirm the extent of various proposed motivations.
I don’t think we’re going to need a sociological study to verify that the vast majority of adults drink, and claim to like it when they do. That’s all I meant by ubiquity. I should have said “commonness” or something equally awkwardish.
No, you seem to be claiming that they’re doing it for the taste. They do it in spite of the taste, or indifferently to the taste, and add sweet flavors to mask it. However, people can grow to like the taste over time, and some of the flavors in the taste are good by themselves, though not as good as, say, a chocolate milkshake.
You also seem to be assuming that a taste has to be repulsive or delicious, instead of just neutral, or all right in certain contexts, or occasionally desirable.
Er, no, that’s pretty much the opposite of what I’m claiming. I’m claiming that they say they do it for the taste, but mainly (or solely) want the psychoactive effects.
Sorry for getting it wrong. Anyway, I don’t think they say that they primarily do it for the taste, which is an empirical question.
I think they say they “like” it, and they mean they like the overall experience, and you’re interpreting that to mean that they like the taste. Or they say they like the taste because they grew to like it over time, or because they mix it with other flavors, and you’re interpreting that to mean they primarily drink it for the taste.
I am not surprised when someone does pay to do such a thing to their burrito.
Even if it were very common, and a practice concentrated in the top 10% wealthiest people?
I think it is quite common for people to eat food that is hot enough to cause discomfort or even pain, at least in some cultures. The uncomfortably-hot curry is a British tradition that often goes hand in hand with the consumption of beer. In my non-scientific personal experience willingness to eat (and enjoy) food with levels of heat that cause discomfort correlates somewhat with wealth/status—it can be seen as a marker of openness to experience and embracing cultural diversity.
People get desensitized to hot sauce after a while; it takes more to cause discomfort in someone who routinely eats hot sauce than in someone who doesn’t.
I’m fond of spicy food. (My father, who I suspect is a supertaster, isn’t.)
People do get desensitized to hot/spicy food over time but I think people who enjoy the sensation tend to increase the dosage to compensate. Speaking from personal experience, I still like hot food to burn slightly, it just takes more chilli than it used to to achieve that. The burning/discomfort isn’t an unfortunate side effect of the pleasant taste of chillis for me, it’s an essential component of the enjoyment of eating hot food. I’ve heard that the reason people enjoy spicy food is that chilli stiumlates pain receptors and causes the release of endorphins and it is the endorphin release that people crave but I don’t know if that is true.
Yes, that’s what I meant.
Another thing I’ve noticed is that some hot peppers have good flavors in addition to the burning sensation (jalapenos, for example), but others seem to be practically tasteless apart from it.
Mmm… I think I missed something. How I would I stop being not surprised if it were a common practice?
Uh, I mean, why would I start being surprised if it were a common practice [to pay insane prices to inject burritos...]?