What I did NOT tell them was that the jelly beans would not necessarily be tasty, and even some of them could be downright offensive to their taste buds. Bean Boozled jelly beans have 10 flavors that could be considered among the best of the Jelly Belly line (which is what convinced them to participate in the first place), but there are also 10 different flavors, each one corresponding with a "good" flavor, that are downright nasty, varying from rotten egg to moldy cheese. So why is this so difficult? As seen in Michael Pollan's "The Omnivore's Dilemma", distinguishing safe and good foods in the wild from the harmful ones is a supremely difficult task. The catch with Bean Boozled is that there is absolutely no way one can distinguish the flavor of a jelly bean before actually ingesting it- they look completely identical. For the 5 jelly beans for each test, I always arranged it so there was one innocent, non-offensive looking jelly bean on one end (something with a color of light blue or creamy white), and two pairs of easily recognizable "good" Jelly Belly flavors. I myself did not know which ones were good or bad, who would get lucky or unlucky, so I sat back and watched nature determine their fates.
As each of the test subjects began their 3 minutes for survival I payed careful attention at what jelly bean they chose first, how they considered their options for the second jelly bean, how they tried to use their senses to determine what was safe, and how long it took for them to make decisions. I would be observing neophobia as they deliberated which food to pick next, and how hesitant they were to actually consume it. In addition, neophilia would occur when they decided to pick a completely different meal from the last, and especially with non-hesitance. At the end I would ask them to rate each meal they had from 1-10.
The first thing that became clear to me was that nobody would starve to death. Each of the 5 test subjects jumped into their hunt immediately, not even taking a second to consider their options. 4 out of 5 times shock was sent into their system as they realized they picked a raw deal. After several twitches and some prolonged chewing, they finally made their decisive move to chew another. Their reluctance to choose another and their fumbling of the remaining beans made it clear that their neophobia was taking effect. The lucky kid (who got a delicious chocolate pudding) savored her first meal and comfortably chose her second, a meal of a different color. All 5 of the subjects chose different types of flavors for their second meal in the wild, yet only two of them showed real hesitation, supporting neophilia. To my surprise nobody tried to dissect any of their second meal to determine its taste, yet even those who examined their selection more carefully still found their senses failing them. All 5 subjects failed to select delectable flavors for their second jelly bean, proving that no matter how keen their judgement or senses were, they did not have the capacity or care to identify their meal before diving in. Was it the urgent need to get the foul taste of the last meal out of their mouths? Was the one lucky girl just oblivious to the existence of foul-tasting meals in the wild? Or were they simply fending for their lives, in order to not starve to death? After carefully examining the footage, I believe it was a combination of the three. The third meal was a fight for some, with a clear relief at the finish line that they had not starved to death.
If I were to re-do this experiment I would probably lower the "starve to death" time limit to something like 1 or 2 minutes, because although the subjects showed conviction for their survival, nobody came close to the established time limit. In addition, I felt it was a huge disadvantage not having any of the "barf" flavored beans in the pack I bought for this experiment. That would have totally changed the game! Other than that, I felt this experiment was very successful in what I wanted to map- the psychological highs and lows involved in foraging food in the wild.
In the end, I learned that although we may not always like the foods we can find, the will to survive is too strong for one to simply give up. In addition, the human's ability to judge a meal's value and taste by pure instinct is simply not discernible enough to differentiate the harmful and offensive from the good. I noticed patterns in behavior, such as sudden twitches, and inexplicable belching as a result of these harmful foods, resulting in neophobia, an involuntary hesitation and reluctancy when approaching future meals. And although everyone at one time will experience these meals, they will immediately aim for a meal more familiar and seemingly harmless (such as the light blue or white jelly bean) that they recognize as less of a risk. These ideas are important to us because all of the time we are searching for meals, and even though most of us do not live in the wild, we all participate in a constant game of neophilia and neophobia that keeps us constantly going for variety and familiarity- foods we can trust, and foods we can no longer trust, our sense for adventure and variety, our fear for disease and disgust. But the most important idea of all is that these two elements of the mind, constantly playing a game of back and forth are the two reasons why we do not starve to death. Even for those in the unfortunate situation of having no edible foods at their dispense, it is likely that these influential mental mechanisms will convince them to consume something. In the end (and conveniently in the theme of halloween), neophilia and neophobia will keep humans in an everlasting game of trick-or-treat.
This experiment was incredibly creative.
ReplyDeleteKeep it up.