 Picture by skeeze (via Pixabay.com) Doughnuts, Dishonesty, and What Makes a Holiday Disappointing
By Heath Shive Holidays started out as “holy days” – a time for rest. But there’s no rest for the wicked - and apparently the wicked steal doughnuts and bagels! That's how you can judge a holiday. And people steal more doughnuts around Christmas than any other time of year! Don’t believe me? To the science! The Bagel Man and His Magic Math Paul Feldman was an economic analyst for years. He then retired and started a bagel/doughnut delivery business. After a few years, he was delivering over 8,000 bagels a week to over 140 companies. Because Feldman used to be an economic analyst, his records are immaculate…and filled to the brim with data to scrutinize. In an 8-year period, he delivered 1.375 million bagels and over 648 thousand doughnuts. How often are people honest? Paul Feldman knows the answer. People are honest – on the average – 89% of the time. What Do Bagels Have To Do With a Bad Holiday? Because of his mountainous data, Feldman could see all kinds of trends, such as:
And holidays? People are more likely to steal bagels and doughnuts during Christmas time than any other holiday! Overall payment rates drop 2 percent (from an 89% honesty rate to 87%) during the week of Christmas. This boost in dishonesty represents an 15% increase in theft! Thanksgiving is almost as bad. St. Valentine’s Day is “lousy” and so is the week of Tax Day (April 15th). Here’s another surprise. People were more honest during July 4th, Labor Day, and Columbus Day. But Why? You would think that Christmas would the time of maximum honesty and goodwill. So why the extra bad instead of extra good? In the acclaimed best-selling book Freakonomics, authors Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner reviewed this case of bagel theft in the very first chapter of their book. They compared the holidays. Why are Christmas and St. Valentine’s Day so different from Labor Day and even Columbus Day? Because holidays like Christmas (and Thanksgiving and St. Valentine’s) represent a major financial setback and an overwhelming increase in anxiety. In contrast, holidays like Labor Day and Columbus Day are basically just a day off of work. Conclusion What makes a holiday good – or any day of any week, for that matter – is how much stress and anxiety it creates. But since Christmas and St. Valentine’s Day are not likely to get any easier to bear in the future, things will look bleak for honesty (and doughnut sales) come the holidays. So remember, when a high-spending holiday looms, keep an eye on your valuables. People are more willing to steal. ‘Tis the season. LIKE US ON FACEBOOK! Sources: Levitt, Steven D. and Stephen J. Dubner. Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores The Hidden Side of Everything. William Morrow (HarperCollins imprint), 2005. Stephen J. Dubner and Steven D. Levitt (June 6, 2004). "What The Bagel Man Saw". The New York Times.  Picture by emz993 (via Pixabay.com) Gift Giving Psychology (Part 3): Family Is A Better Investment Than Friendship
By Heath Shive We've seen that there's a psychology to gift giving. First, we looked at the norm of reciprocity. Then we looked at the "foot-in-the-door" technique. Today, we look at the science behind the adage, "Blood is thicker than water." Or - as I say it - family is a better investment than friendship. There’s the old Biblical proverb, “It’s better to give than receive" (Acts 20:35). But kids will tell you something different – it is way more fun to receive gifts! There’s a scientific way to maximize your gift-receiving selfishness! To the science of family and friends! Gift Giving Psychology In 2003, psychologists Gad Saad and Tripat Gill performed a study on young adults to determine how much they spent on gifts and also who received the most expensive gifts. Specifically, Saad and Gill were predicting that the gift's price would correlate with genetic relatedness. In their paper, genetic relation was measured as the value r, where r equaled the amount of shared genetic material. For example, your parents would have an r value of 0.50, because you share 50% of your DNA with each parent. Siblings would also have an r value of 0.50. Grandparents (r=0.25), aunts/uncles (r=0.25), half-siblings (r=0.25), cousins (r=0.125), step-relations (r=0), and friends (r=0) were also included. As Saad and Gill predicted, the study results showed that the closer the genetic relation, the greater the gift. Close family (r = 0.50) received $73.12 on mean average. Moderately close family (r = 0.25) and distant family (r = 0.125) received $19.03 and $18.56 respectively. How Does This Help Me? Now you know who to invite into your life! If you have to choose between your aunts and high-school friends, it’s better to involve your aunts. If you have to choose between your favorite sibling and your best friend for your maid-of-honor/best man, choose your sibling. Saad & Gill’s study showed other patterns too:
Conclusion Saad and Gill’s study is far from exhaustive – it was one study of one group from one city. There are bound to be cultural and individual differences. But compare the results above with your own experience. Pretty close, right? Who spends more money on your wedding: your parents or college buddies? Who will donate a kidney: your family or your friends? In “The Dukes of Hazzard,” Boss Hogg once said, “Blood is thicker than water, but money is thicker than blood.” Scientifically, money is not thicker than blood. Family is always a good investment. LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK! Sources: Saad, Gad and Tripat Gill, “An Evolutionary Psychology Perspective on Gift-Giving among Young Adults,” Psychology & Marketing 20 (2003): 765-84.  Picture by jill111 via Pixabay.com Gift Giving Psychology (Part 2): The Door-In-The-Face Technique
By Heath Shive In the last blog we talked about the norm of reciprocity – a societal rule that says: you have to give me something if I give you something. This next mind trick is a variation of the norm of reciprocity. This mind trick is called the door-in-the-face technique – or in other words, when you reject my first ridiculous offer, you will be more likely to agree to my second offer. Sound impossible? To the science! The Science In 1976, psychologists Robert Cialdini and Karen Ascani performed a study at the University of Arizona. They asked people to donate blood as part of a blood drive, but they were asked in 2 different ways: (1) one group would be asked if they would donate blood sometime tomorrow, but…(2) a second group would be asked to donate once every 2 months for 3 years! Okay, here's the twist. If people in the second group refused to donate blood every 2 months for 3 years, only then would the researchers ask them to donate just once sometime tomorrow. The results showed that more people agreed to give blood (and actually gave blood) when they received the more extreme request first! When people reject the first proposal (“shut the door in your face”), they are more likely to agree to the second (lesser) request. Door-in-the-face technique! How It Works The door-in-the-face technique makes use of 2 basic psychological processes. First, the large request sets up a contrast effect – for example, contrast the one time blood request to a blood donation over 3 years! Second, the immediate concession by the requester invokes the norm of reciprocity. The requester implicitly says, “Hey! I’m giving a little; now you give a little.” And many people do! Car dealers often artificially inflate the asking price for a car. During negotiation, the seller “graciously” will concede a little on the car price. But now it is your “turn” to raise your buying price! Have you ever had a sales agent say something like: “So can I write your name for a $100 donation?” or “…for a 2-year lease?” or “…for 20 boxes of units?” They ask high to set an artificially high standard – so that you will settle (or reciprocate) at a higher number than normally. Conclusion As explained in the great persuasion manual, Age of Propaganda: “The norm of reciprocity is successful as a persuasion device because it directs our thoughts and carries its own motivation to act on those thoughts. We are directed to think “How can I repay my obligation?” as opposed to “Is this a good deal?” So this Christmas, if your daughter asks for a pony…beware. She knows you will say no. It is the second gift on her list that she really wants. LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK! Sources: Cialdini, R. B., & Ascani, K. (1976). Test of a concession procedure for inducing verbal, behavioral, and further compliance with a request to give blood. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 295-300. Pratkanis, Anthony, & Elliot Aronson. Age of Propaganda: The Everyday Use and abuse of Persuasion. W.H. Freeman and Company, 1991.  Picture by geralt (via Pixabay.com) Gift Giving Psychology: The Norm of Reciprocity
by Heath Shive In the 1970s, the Hare Krishna were experts at collecting donations. They looked strange, would chant in airports, and had a tendency to "weird" people out. So, how did they do it? They used the psychology of the norm of reciprocity. So this Christmas, how can you protect yourself from this psychological trick? Let's find out. To the science of gift giving! The Norm of Reciprocity: Society’s Guilt Trip The Hare Krishna were a very visible religious movement in the 1970s, especially in airports. When it comes to the art of persuasion, you wouldn’t expect a chanting, orange-clad, stubble-headed pagan to be an expert - but their organization made millions! It was the famous psychologist Robert Cialdini who discovered that they used a powerful technique called the norm of reciprocity. But first, what is a "norm"? As described in the fascinating book Age of Propaganda, a norm is a specific guide to conduct. A norm is how society tells you to act normally – like tipping 15% at a restaurant, sneezing into your elbow, or not cutting in line. The norm of reciprocity is simply this: If I give you something, you are obligated to give me something in return. The norm of reciprocity regulates exchange in a culture. The Power of Flowers Psychologist Robert Cialdini – who spent hours at the airport observing Krishnas in action – discovered that the sect used the norm of reciprocity to “guilt trip” people into giving money. How? They would simply give you a flower. The Krishna member would spy a “victim,” who would suddenly find a flower pressed into his or her hand. If the target attempted to give it back, the Krishna would refuse by saying, “It is our gift to you.” Only then did they request a donation. The gift of a flower established a feeling of obligation. The targeted “victim” would feel compelled to donate – thus fulfilling the norm of reciprocity. The Power of a Free Coke In fact – even if you dislike someone – the norm of reciprocity can work. A study by Dennis Regan published 1971 illustrates this. In his experiment, two male students were surveyed for their “aesthetic judgments.” However one of the students was an accomplice who intentionally either made himself likable or unlikable. After five minutes, sometimes the accomplice would leave and come back with two Cokes…offering the other Coke to the other student. At the end of the study, the accomplice asked the real student if he would like to buy some raffle tickets. The results showed that when the accomplice gave the other student a Coke, he sold nearly twice as many tickets compared with no Coke – whether the accomplice was likable or not! Conclusion So beware of gifts! Those “free” cheese samples at the grocery, those “free” mailing labels from a nonprofit, and that “free” drink from someone in a bar. Beware that invitation to a distant cousin’s or college friend’s wedding. Beware of those “free” pill samples given by a pharmaceutical rep. Because every gift gives twice - it gives a gift...and an obligation. The norm of reciprocity is supposed to establish a fair exchange for a better society. Ironically, the norm of reciprocity can be used to cheat people too. LIKE US ON FACEBOOK! Sources: Cialdini, Robert. Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. Rev.ed. Collins, 2007. Pratkanis, Anthony, & Elliot Aronson. Age of Propaganda: The Everyday Use and Abuse of Persuasion. W.H. Freeman and Company, 1991. Regan, D. T. (1971). Effects of a favor and liking on compliance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 627-639.  Image by Alexa_Fotos via Pixabay.com 30 Days Hath November: The Ancient Magic (and Modern Math) of 60
By Heath Shive “Thirty days hath September/April, June, and November/All the rest have thirty-one/Except February.” As a poem, this stinks. As a way to remember numbers, it’s helpful. Math doesn’t have to be profound, poetic, or even comprehensible. Math only needs to be helpful. As science author Brian Clegg writes in his book Are Numbers Real?: “Math, in the end, provides nothing more or less than a set of rules that are used to get from a starting point to an outcome.” And if we have problems with numbers today, imagine what it was like for humanity in the Bronze Age?! How did the ancients get along with numbers? They used the magic of the number 60! And we still do today, sometimes. To the math! The Magic of 60 The modern metric system is brilliantly based on the number 10. And yet in Bronze Age Babylon, the base number used was 60. Why? The number 10 makes sense (10 fingers, 10 toes, etc), right? But 10 is awful for fractions. In the year 2000 B.C., you do not need fractions. Fractions are so abstract, and the real world uses whole numbers. Ancient merchants didn’t sell 1/3 of a camel or 2/7 of a jug of wine. And yet they still needed to be able to divide things up. So they used 60. The number 10 is divisible only by 1, 2, 5, and 10. But the number 60 can be divided by 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, 30, and 60. So 60 is just so much more useful! And ancient Babylon did use it. Twelve months to a year. Each month has 30 days. A total of 360 days. Hey, you say, there are 364.25 days in a year! That’s right! That is why ancient calendars threw in extra days with intercalation (or epagomenal days in Ancient Egypt). Where Is the 60? We see 60-base numbers pop up in strange ways: ancient pantheons had 12 gods, 12 signs to a zodiac, 12 tribes in Ancient Israel, 12 apostles, 12 months a year, 30 days a month, 4 seasons, 24 hours in a day, 60 minutes an hour, etc. But you say: Hey, I see more 12 than 60! That’s right. You would almost believe that the number system was based on 12. But no. The number 12 is just the most common (and most accessible for the illiterate) factor of 60! The ancient world used 60 in other ways, especially with money. The talent was a large denomination of money used by Babylonians, Sumerians, and Hebrews. Originally, a talent was divided into 60 minas, and each mina was divided into 60 shekels. Jesus was betrayed by Judas for “30 pieces of silver,” or 30 shekels. And of course, November still has 30 days. Conclusion No one ever invented geometry, algebra, or calculus for fun. Math in all its forms and numeric glory must - in the end - serve a purpose. And after a while, 60 wasn’t useful anymore and was left behind. Ten is the new base number for our society. But back when there was no such thing as a calculator, abacus, slide rule, algebra, or geometry – not even a public school system to teach fundamentals – the number 60 was the world’s math teacher. LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK! Source: Clegg, Brian. Are Numbers Real? The Uncanny Relationship of Mathematics and the Physical World. St. Martin’s Press, 2016.  Pictures by GDJ & OpenClipart-Vectors via Pixabay How to Brainwash Turkeys…and Maybe Humans Too?
By Heath Shive Robert Cialdini wrote what is quite possibly the most influential book in modern psychology, entitled Influence. In its first chapter, Cialdini describes an experiment made by the pioneering ethologist M.W. Fox. Fox noticed that mother turkeys can either care for their young - or they can ignore them. A turkey’s mothering is triggered by the “cheep-cheep” sound of chicks. The more “cheep-cheep,” the more love. Fox used a stuffed weasel (or European polecat) in an experiment. Turkeys and weasels are natural enemies. But Fox found that if a stuffed polecat played the “cheep-cheep” sounds of baby turkeys, then the turkey not only approached a stuffed weasel, but even gathered the stuffed weasel beneath her! When the “cheep-cheep” sound ended, then the mother turkey would attack! We might think it’s inferior that a turkey is so simply programmed. But are humans any different? Do we honestly “think” about all of our actions? To the science! The Norm of Reciprocity If I give you a gift, you feel compelled to give me something in return. A study by Dennis Regan published 1971 illustrates this. Two male students were surveyed for their “aesthetic judgments.” However one of the students was an accomplice - who intentionally either made himself likable or unlikable. After five minutes, sometimes the accomplice would leave and come back with two Cokes…offering the other Coke to the other student. At the end of the study, the accomplice asked the real student if he would like to buy some raffle tickets. The results showed that when the accomplice gave the other student a Coke, he sold nearly twice as many tickets compared with no Coke – whether the accomplice was likable or not! The Endowment Effect You automatically ascribe more value to anything you perceive as “yours.” It’s called the endowment effect. In a 1989 paper, economist Jack Knetsch asked one group of students to choose between a coffee mug and a chocolate bar. Of these students, 44 percent wanted the chocolate bar, 56 percent wanted mug. In other words, the items were roughly equal in perceived value. Knetsch gave a second group only coffee mugs, but they could exchange for chocolate bars later if they wanted. He gave a third group only chocolate bars, but they could exchange for mugs later. About half of the students should have traded the items, right? No! Only 11 percent of the mug-owning students wanted to trade, and only 10 percent of chocolate bar-owning students wanted to exchange for mugs. The vast majority of students didn’t want to part with what they had now that they had (“owned”) it! The Peak-End Rule We judge an experience based on how it ends! Barry Schwartz – author of the fantastic book The Paradox of Choice - cites a lab study where participants were asked to listen to two terribly loud noises. The first noise was awful, but lasted only 8 seconds. The second noise was the same as the first and also lasted 8 seconds…but it was followed by another 8 seconds of unpleasant noise that wasn’t as loud. The vast majority of the participants chose the second noise – despite the fact that it had all the noise of the first, and was twice as long (16 seconds vs. 8 seconds). Conclusion Your mom always told you to think before you act. But “thinking” is a long and deliberate process. Our brain is guided primarily by instincts (shortcuts to decision-making) that are written on our DNA. Whoever knows your instincts knows the “buttons” in your mind. Much of modern advertising and political propaganda is trying to bypass our thinking to control us by instinct. But knowing that there’s a trap is the first step in avoiding it. Mind your thoughts! LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK! Sources: Cialdini, Robert. Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. Rev.ed. Collins, 2007. Knetsch, Jack L., "The Endowment Effect and Evidence of Nonreversible Indifference Curves," American Economic Review, 1989, 79, 1277-1284. Regan, D. T. (1971). Effects of a favor and liking on compliance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 627-639. Schwartz, Barry. The Paradox of Choice - Why More Is Less. New York: Harper Perennial, 2004.  Image by Kurious (via Pixabay.com) Canada’s Stone Cold Success with Immigration
By Heath Shive Natives versus newcomers! It’s an ancient dynamic. Immigration usually meant invasion, in the Old Days. And in the Modern Age, some still feel that way, all over the world. But one country found “the sweet spot.” Canada. Jonathon Tepperman wrote a book entitled The Fix: How Nations Survive and Thrive in a World of Decline. In the book, Tepperman uses Canada’s immigration policy as an example to the world. But he is not shy about why Canada adopted its policy – which had a lot less to do with political enlightenment and much more to do with cold, hard political engineering. To the fix! A Cold Truth of the Great White North More than a half century ago, Canada was experiencing economic growth, but it had problems filling the jobs. At that time, Canada was economically healthy, but politically the nation seemed to be falling apart. The separatist movement for an independent Quebec was stronger than ever. And regionally, Canadians were affiliating almost as strongly with their American neighbors – “Nova Scotians with New Englanders, Manitobans with Minnesotans, Alberta cowboys with Montana ranchers” – as they did with fellow Canadians. To solve the shortage of labor in the country, Canada formally abandoned ethnicity as a basis for evaluating immigrants in 1962 – becoming the becoming the first country in the world to do so! But the audacious Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau went a few steps farther with a new super-charged immigration policy. Trudeau thought that immigrants were key to Canada’s future…and unity. Unity…by immigrants? How? Immigrants – once integrated – were more likely to identify with the central government, and greater national identity meant a weaker regional identity (e.g., a separatist Quebecois). And a large flow of immigrants meant a much needed population surge for the 2nd-largest country on earth! But… There’s a Catch “Open arms” did not mean “open border.” Immigration was given a greater governmental focus, but that meant greater stringency for a greater number of regulations. Only certain immigrants would be let in. As Tepperman writes, “Henceforth, all independent applicants for residency – regardless of birthplace or race – would be assessed by assigning them points on the basis of nine criteria, such as education, age, fluency in English or French, and whether or not their skills fit Canada’s economic needs.” Only immigrants who were fluent, educated, and skilled were allowed. No fluency in English or French? No skills? Criminal record? Stay out. Even in Canada, there's no "free lunch." In a speech in October 1971, Trudeau promised that his government would support all cultures – small or strong. But immigrants had to demonstrate “a desire and effort…to contribute to Canada.” Conclusion National integration did not have to mean cultural assimilation – and thus cultural pluralism is born. And in Canada, it works great. Tepperman mentions that, today, over 20 percent of Canada’s citizens are foreign-born – more than twice the number in the United States. (Note: Only 6% of Canada's immigrants are undocumented, whereas around 1/3 of America's immigrants are undocumented. This is the result more of geographic isolation than utopian success.) Canada's policy was not about being “nice.” This was a practical and successful way to make Canada bigger and better than ever by making sure that the better and stronger immigrants went north…instead of somewhere else. LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK! Source: Tepperman, Jonathon. The Fix: How Nations Survive and Thrive in a World in Decline. Tim Duggan Books, 2016.  Picture by Learen (via Pixabay.com) War: The Beneficial History of Conquest(?)
By Heath Shive The only constants in life are death and taxes. And nothing quite blends these two constants better than war. War is always expensive (and thus needs taxes) and always lethal (and thus requires death). There seem to be 2 dominant emotions about war. War is either a grotesque evil or a glorious expression of ideals. But is war good for anything? And according to nationally renowned history professor Ian Morris, the answer is yes – as long as the war accomplishes one thing. What thing is that? To the history of war! Savage Past, Peaceful Present In the 1990s, anthropologist Lawrence Keeley (author of War Before Civilization) showed that the Stone Age societies that still existed in the 20th century were shockingly violent. Feuding and raiding typically carried off 1 person in 10 or even 1 in 5. Ian Morris cites that by most estimates 10 to 20 percent of all people living in Stone Age societies died at the hands of other humans! Primitive humanity was ultraviolent! Ian Morris makes this comparison. After World War Two, between 1950 and 1974, just 1 Scandinavian in 5,000 and 1 Briton in 4,000 died violently, and while the American homicide rate – 1 in 700 – remained higher than Europe’s, it had still fallen 50 percent since the 1930s. How did humanity decrease its violent death rate by 99% over the course of a few thousand years?!! The answer: War. Conquest Is Good? Ian Morris wrote the fascinating book War! What Is It Good For? The book is over 400 pages long, so it’s hard to summarize his theory in a blog article. But here it is. In the ancient past, humanity was comprised of hundreds of tribes – each with a territory defined by a border. Since war is overwhelming fought along borders against external foes, the more borders that exist the greater the number of wars. But a funny thing happens when your tribe is conquered by an empire! Your tiny wars stop, the tribes are overwhelmed by a new over-arching political identity, tranquility is enforced, and the society becomes more prosperous. Historical Examples The Romans were militant and aggressive, but after the Romans conquered your smaller state, you were part of the empire. The Romans conquered you…then protected you. War moved away from you to the new border and peace followed – the Pax Romana. In ancient China, there was the classical period of the Seven Warring States. All of these States were conquered by the Han Dynasty, which imposed peace and created a Pax Sinica (Morris’ words). Once India was a jumble of dozens of competing rajah states. Then the British Raj conquered the entire subcontinent. Death rituals from suttee to thuggee were abolished. Following the last War of Indian Independence (or Sepoy Mutiny, depending on whom you ask), the subcontinent had 80 non-war years – time enough to form a comprehensive national identity. The British Empire disintegrated…but India did not, and remains one united nation to this day. The Roman Empire, the Han dynasty, and the British Raj were no paradise – but they were considerably less violent than their predecessors. Conclusion This is Morris’ theory: War only becomes a net positive if it results in the expansion of the nation-state. So according to Morris' theory, any war or conflict that does not expand the nation-state is a loss. Death and taxes are a constant. It's bad enough to lose tax revenue to war. To lose the lives of your people too... LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK! Sources: Morris, Ian. War! What Is It Good For? : Conflict and the Progress of Civilization from Primates to Robots. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2014. Keeley, Lawrence. War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage. Oxford University Press (New York), 1996.  Image Artist: geralt (via Pixabay.com) Seduction Victims: The 18 Types from Robert Greene’s “The Art of Seduction”
By H. Shive As the saying goes, it takes two to tango. There cannot be seducers without the seduced. Robert Greene - the same author who gave us the 9 Types of Seducers - wrote another list of the 18 Types of Seduction Victims. Do you see yourself somewhere on the list? Be careful! The 18 Types of Seduction Victims
Conclusion Robert Greene wrote of what he called the “Victim Theory” of seduction: “Nobody in this world feels whole and complete. We all sense some gap…When we fall in love, it is often with someone who seems to fill that gap. The process is usually unconscious and depends on luck…But the seducer does not leave such things to chance.” Seducers will not wait for luck. They will make their own luck. They will chase you, hunt you, and ravish you. That’s exactly what some people want! Even if you are a victim, can you honestly say that you went unwillingly into their arms? LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK! Sources: Greene, Robert. The Art of Seduction. Penguin Books, 2003.  Image via Pixabay.com (Accessed Nov 2017) Canned Pumpkin is NOT Canned Squash: The Science
By H. Shive Every year, someone thinks there is a pumpkin-conspiracy - like this article from Mental Floss entitled "Canned Pumpkin Isn't Actually Canned Pumpkin." It's not true. So don't attach paranoia to a pumpkin pie just yet. To the science! Pumpkin Aren't Squash Because Jack-o-Lanterns Aren’t Zucchinis! Did you know that the classic orange pumpkin and the zucchini...are the same plant? They're both members of the species Cucurbita pepo! But we don't call jack-o-lanterns "carved zucchinis," do we? And we don't cry about a great zucchini-conspiracy, do we? Canned pumpkin is primarily made with the Dickinson pumpkin. Libby’s brand of canned pumpkin is made exclusively of a variety of Dickinson pumpkin. That’s because the Dickinson pumpkin is the best tasting pumpkin. Pumpkin pies in the United States are overwhelmingly made from this cultivar. Here’s the Science The Dickinson pumpkin and the butternut squash are both members of the same species, Cucurbita moschata. But that doesn't mean that they are both squashes! Need another example? Broccoli, cabbage, and brussel sprouts are all members of the same species, Brassica oleracea. But we don't say that sauerkraut is made of broccoli, and we don't say that cole slaw is made from brussel sprouts! The Dickinson pumpkin is a pumpkin! Just because its species has the butternut squash doesn't make the Dickinson pumpkin a squash...anymore than a jack-o-lantern is really a zucchini...or a cabbage is really a broccoli. Conclusion In 2012, American Studies Professor Cindy Ott wrote an exhaustive book entitled Pumpkins: The Curious History of an American Icon - which details how the pumpkin went from poor people's food to an autumn idol of Americana. Ott tells us that after the Civil War, some southerners thought the pumpkin pie was part of a Yankee conspiracy to corrupt Southern culture! There was no conspiracy then...and there isn't one now. Honestly, do you want there to be? With all the outrage in American society today - constant outrage from every side - don't we all just want pumpkin pie to be honest, American, and delicious? LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK! Sources: Ott, Cindy. Pumpkins: The Curious History of an American Icon. University of Washington Press, 2012. |
AuthorHello! My name is Heath Shive, content manager at ScholarFox. I'll be the author of most of the blog posts. I'm a former geologist and currently a freelance writer. The world is complex and seemingly crazy. Good! Because when you love to learn, you'll never be bored. Archives
March 2019
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed