milk first or cereal first, which one?

[⛧Despair⛧]

instead of the bowl

[8ullfrog]

This discussion has happened before, but I don't think I've seen those little boxes in years. I have seen the bowl design.

[reg1s7]

Well, I lived with both option, and I can say that cereal first is better.

[Astro_80 (WASH YOUR HANDS!)]

Bunny456님이 먼저 게시:

instead of the bowl

Milk first, cereal later.

[Samwise]

Jinn-Gon Qui님이 먼저 게시:

Samwise님이 먼저 게시:

I disagree. What people do, dont do and how they do it, tells something about the person. I get a feeling that if someone pours milk first, they're slobby, and not logical people.

It's food. There's nothing to tell about.

Of course there is. This is reading a person, and not even on a micro level, cereal first is the only logical thing to do. Everything you do, how you do it, or dont do at all always tells something about that person.

[Jinn-Gon Qui]

Samwise님이 먼저 게시:

Jinn-Gon Qui님이 먼저 게시:

It's food. There's nothing to tell about.

Of course there is. This is reading a person, and not even on a micro level, cereal first is the only logical thing to do. Everything you do, how you do it, or dont do at all always tells something about that person.

It's like me saying: why do you care what people eat or how they eat something? I, too, pour cereal first and then milk, but who cares?

Food is meant for consumption, not logic. OTHERWISE, this would've invalidated the idea of using kitchen spoon, fork, and knife - which fork by itself is most commonly used today, when back then how Asia invented using sticks to grab a hold of pretty much everything.

[Canny McTin-Face]

I turn my bowl upside down and eat it from that tiny circle foot thing that's under the bowl.

[Samwise]

Jinn-Gon Qui님이 먼저 게시:

Samwise님이 먼저 게시:

Of course there is. This is reading a person, and not even on a micro level, cereal first is the only logical thing to do. Everything you do, how you do it, or dont do at all always tells something about that person.

It's like me saying: why do you care what people eat or how they eat something? I, too, pour cereal first and then milk, but who cares?

Food is meant for consumption, not logic. OTHERWISE, this would've invalidated the idea of using kitchen spoon, fork, and knife - which fork by itself is most commonly used today, when back then how Asia invented using sticks to grab a hold of pretty much everything.

I guess you just simply cant understand psychology. My condolendes.

[Jinn-Gon Qui]

Samwise님이 먼저 게시:

Jinn-Gon Qui님이 먼저 게시:

It's like me saying: why do you care what people eat or how they eat something? I, too, pour cereal first and then milk, but who cares?

Food is meant for consumption, not logic. OTHERWISE, this would've invalidated the idea of using kitchen spoon, fork, and knife - which fork by itself is most commonly used today, when back then how Asia invented using sticks to grab a hold of pretty much everything.

I guess you just simply cant understand psychology. My condolendes.

And how's psychology exactly determines the order of how to eat a cereal?

[8ullfrog]

Psychologist plans next vehicle purchase after reading this thread. Is it just Dentists with the Porsche thing?

[Jinn-Gon Qui]

Toast님이 먼저 게시:

Jinn-Gon Qui님이 먼저 게시:

Food is meant for consumption, not logic

So let's just abandon logic when it comes to food?

Compelling.

Factories are meant for production, not safety. So let's ignore safety.

Dogs are meant for companionship, not discipline. So let's not bother with discipline.

Yards are meant for enjoyment, not work. So let's not do yardwork.

Hmm... :spazdunno:

You know that's not what I meant.

You want food in logic? Okay: it's logical to make, cook, bake, grill - and any other form of making food to be right; the taste for the most part, especially if the food is done right, while subjectively if the taste and smell is good as well.

But when it comes to cereal specifically, why does it matter what you pour first into your bowl? Is it going to define you, as person any differently if you "accidentally", according to the so-called logic, poured milk first and then cereal?

[Qlone]

In fact, the real game is to put both things together at the same time, directly in your mouth (bowls are for loosers) and not die trying.

[Jinn-Gon Qui]

Toast님이 먼저 게시:

Jinn-Gon Qui님이 먼저 게시:

But when it comes to cereal specifically, why does it matter what you pour first into your bowl? Is it going to define you, as person any differently if you "accidentally", according to the so-called logic, poured milk first and then cereal?

Generally, if you care more about controlling portion size and/or not being wasteful, then you will put the cereal in first and pour the milk in after to make sure you get the right amount of both. If you care more about your cereal not getting soggy, then you will put the milk in first and put a small amount of cereal on the top of it.

Now THAT'S a logical explanation!

Not to discredit you, however. I still stand by my simple statement in my first comment on the thread, even when all things considered: just eat the damn thing

[Samwise]

Jinn-Gon Qui님이 먼저 게시:

Samwise님이 먼저 게시:

I guess you just simply cant understand psychology. My condolendes.

And how's psychology exactly determines the order of how to eat a cereal?

Psychology doesnt necessarily determine how you eat your cereal, but you can use psychology to give clues about your personality and character.

I'm talking about smaller stuff, like for example. Lets say theres two guys working in office. Other person puts his pens on wherever on the table, other guy places them on the same spot, all in order, pointing in same direction. You do form certain image of them, because of that small detail, right? Without even seeing either, you get an image the organizing one is a guy with good posture, and tidy person, right?

People like "mentalists" and such can read those very small details to overall know a lot of things about you, you never told them. I don't believe in psychic stuff, but reading people, and learning what kind of people they are, by those small actions they do, is very much real thing.

[Samwise]

Qlone님이 먼저 게시:

In fact, the real game is to put both things together at the same time, directly in your mouth (bowls are for loosers) and not die trying.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y6MfP36HWE

[Jinn-Gon Qui]

Samwise님이 먼저 게시:

Psychology doesnt necessarily determine how you eat your cereal, but you can use psychology to give clues about your personality and character.

And if there are people who do the opposite, or people using the method as Toast described:

Toast님이 먼저 게시:

If you care more about your cereal not getting soggy, then you will put the milk in first and put a small amount of cereal on the top of it.

Is there any wrong in doing that?

Samwise님이 먼저 게시:

I'm talking about smaller stuff, like for example. Lets say theres two guys working in office. Other person puts his pens on wherever on the table, other guy places them on the same spot, all in order, pointing in same direction. You do form certain image of them, because of that small detail, right? Without even seeing either, you get an image the organizing one is a guy with good posture, and tidy person, right?

I'm not sure I follow your analogy? But even if there's one person who places their pens anywhere on their table while the other person places theirs in a perfect order and position, why does it matter how that other person organizes themselves or their table for that matter?

Samwise님이 먼저 게시:

People like "mentalists" and such can read those very small details to overall know a lot of things about you, you never told them. I don't believe in psychic stuff, but reading people, and learning what kind of people they are, by those small actions they do, is very much real thing.

And isn't that, like, ENTIRELY subjective, in one's point of view? Granted it probably isn't, I'm yet to hear if there's any fact/s that if people who do things out of the ordinary; like pouring milk first and then cereal or placing their pens on the desk in such perfect position, means anything bad?

Bad doesn't necessarily mean it's literally bad, but that's my argument: it doesn't need to be of anyone's concern.