I’ve been in public cafeterias and everyone seems to avoid the chicken liver, but when I ask them about it they generally talk about how good everything else is rather than how bad the chicken liver is, and make the argument that you just can’t have something else for lunch if you have chicken liver, and the social culture around it is such that even when chicken liver accidentally gets into some other food even then I don’t think people are giving it a real chance because the word for chicken liver is literally also the word for spoiled food so they just describe their experience as “spoiled” and it communicates something true but it also carries this heavy connotation and I’ve seen myself do the same thing and notice the assumption that chicken liver is bad creeping into my thinking for example when discussing some particular dish everyone is talking about their experience of the part with the fish and they ask me how I reacted when I came to that part and i’m like well mine was chicken-livered and they’re like ahhh that’s too bad and I’m like yeah but really the only problem here is that my experience was different from theirs so i couldn’t be part of the shared experience in the same way but it’s so easy for sapien brains to confuse that with it being an objectively worse experience because you feel this little ping of regret and your brain puts a heavy weight on those meaninful interactions with other sapiens even if u consume most lunches in private so the shared experience isn’t the biggest part of it and besides if everyone would just give chicken liver a chance this wouldn’t even be a thing...
So is it the case that everyone would enjoy everything if they just gave it a chance? If not, how do we distinguish between the potential-likers and the rest?
(FWIW, I don’t really care about spoilers. All things being equal don’t spoil it for me, but I won’t give it a second thought if you do...maybe because I’m good at unseeing.)
I’ve been in public cafeterias and everyone seems to avoid the chicken liver, but when I ask them about it they generally talk about how good everything else is rather than how bad the chicken liver is, and make the argument that you just can’t have something else for lunch if you have chicken liver, and the social culture around it is such that even when chicken liver accidentally gets into some other food even then I don’t think people are giving it a real chance because the word for chicken liver is literally also the word for spoiled food so they just describe their experience as “spoiled” and it communicates something true but it also carries this heavy connotation and I’ve seen myself do the same thing and notice the assumption that chicken liver is bad creeping into my thinking for example when discussing some particular dish everyone is talking about their experience of the part with the fish and they ask me how I reacted when I came to that part and i’m like well mine was chicken-livered and they’re like ahhh that’s too bad and I’m like yeah but really the only problem here is that my experience was different from theirs so i couldn’t be part of the shared experience in the same way but it’s so easy for sapien brains to confuse that with it being an objectively worse experience because you feel this little ping of regret and your brain puts a heavy weight on those meaninful interactions with other sapiens even if u consume most lunches in private so the shared experience isn’t the biggest part of it and besides if everyone would just give chicken liver a chance this wouldn’t even be a thing...
So is it the case that everyone would enjoy everything if they just gave it a chance? If not, how do we distinguish between the potential-likers and the rest?
(FWIW, I don’t really care about spoilers. All things being equal don’t spoil it for me, but I won’t give it a second thought if you do...maybe because I’m good at unseeing.)