I would consider this theory as the one that was born at the feet of the Twix Theory. I knew that if the Twix Theory was to live on that it would need partners, brothers at its side further reaching into the depths of human lives to reveal tendencies and patterns that exist like the tide of the ocean. This is that second theory.
Let’s face it. Root Beer is polarizing. You either love it or you hate. You will be hard pressed to find someone who is luke warm about this beverage. I suggest that you poll your friends and see if anyone feels anything but strong passion about Root Beer either positive or negative. In my time researching this theory I have found the answer to be surprisingly consistent. Almost 100% agree with this idea of Root Beer’s polarizing tendency in relation to their palette.
Why oh Why is Root Beer this way?
I think it has to do with the sharp, distinct, and bold flavor. Root Beer doesn’t sit back and allow you the opportunity to take a few sips to decide if you like it; it is out there, smacking you in the face with audacious levels of tongue sensation. It forces you to make a choice, and make a definite choice. No second chances.
Let’s start the fire where people were so passionate with regards to application of the Twix Theory. People. You hate them, or you think they are the best person ever. But there aren’t many people who are passive about them. I think this happens because these people are sharp, bold, and distinct in their personalities, and often don’t leave you much choice but to be for them or against them.
Let me suggest a movie. Napoleon Dynamite. Some people can quote the whole movie and love it like it is their first born child’s foot print art work. But others, like Kristen, claim they hate it so much that when they are on their death beds they are going to will themselves to live 2 more hours to make up for the lost time watching that mess of a movie. I challenge you to find me someone who would like to sit down and watch Napoleon Dynamite again just because “well there’s nothing else to do”. It’s either a must have, or a must not have.
Help me find other Root Beer items.
Am I correct in my reasoning that the qualities of bold and distinct make someone or something a Root Beer item?
I think there is more to this theory. Help me tease it out.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Clayton, I think you're correct in assuming that bold and distinct qualities make a person/food item polarizing. I looked it up and root beer used to be flavored with sassafras root, which has a "tangy, thick flavor," (source: article on abc.com - not scientific but certainly legit, right???) Looks like you're on the right track. I hate root beer, by the way.
I agree, defining the qualities definitely helps the theory. I'll be thinking of other root beer things.
One more thing. I actually am kindof in the middle about root beer. Most of the time, I don't like it. But if its homemade, lets say from Top of the Hill, then I love it. I enjoyed it while doing Katrina relief, because it was made down there and I thought it tasted better.
So how does this fit into the theory? I think there are people that have very distinctive and strong personalities, that perhaps makes me not want to be around them often. However, if its genuinely who they are, and they aren't trying to put on a front, then I can appreciate that. Like homemade root beer, I can handle an authentic person - no matter how bold or distinctive.
Actually, I find root beer to be the "twix" of soft drinks.
There are things like root beer which often produce a strong initial impression due to bold and distinct qualities. However, I question the validity of the theory itself because I think most things that we may put in the RBT are capable of working themselves out.
I tried root beer once, hated it, and haven't drank it since. Thus, root beer fits into my personal RBT because if I never drink it, my opinion has no chance to change. However, what if I did try it a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th time? What if I went against my dislike for it and grew accustom to it? I think we would find this problem applies to most things that we would put into the RBT.
For example, coffee's bold and distinct flavor immediately produces a strong opinion when first tried, and thus it should fall into the RBT. However, it escapes because there exists a well-documented middle ground. Coffee's would not be so lucky if it weren't for certain attributes that warrant second chances such as its trendiness (and we know that people go to far greater lengths to be trendy) and it's caffeine content which makes it a suitable aid for late night study sessions. Without these attributes, I think coffee falls into the RBT because it doesn't get a second chance. But with them, coffee earns a second chance which often leads to the middle ground folks who without a strong opinion either way. If other things in the RBT were given a second, third, forth chance, could they also become tolerable?
Now to the brass tacks - people. An overwhelming majority of people do not have personality bold enough for to fit in the RBT. Don't get me wrong, everyone gives off a first impression and some can be quite strong. However, how many people can you think of who's first impression is so good or so bad that you don't even give them a second chance. Seriously, start trying to think of people who would fit, I can think of two - Dennis Rodman and Anne Coulter.
Real life example - I have a strong personality which was very evident in high school. This was also true about a guy named Adam who moved to town and quickly integrated into my group of friends. Due to our strong personalities, we often clashed and didn't get along well. However, since we were stubborn, we continued to hangout. The more we hung out, the more we got used to each other and eventually became great friends - in fact, he is now one of my high school friends who I keep in touch with most. In this case, I acquired a taste for his bold personality (and vise versa) and now those qualities are a big part of what makes our friendship great. At first glance, Adam is certainly an RBT, but people are simply too multifaceted to put into this theory.
So my thought:
For something to fit into the Root Beer Theory, it has to either:
1) Give off such a strong first impression that people are so turned off as to not give it a chance to prove itself.
OR
2) Be so insignificant, that people don't care enough to give it a second chance.
I think "root beer" is an appropriate name for this theory because it clearly fits in #2. Root Beet has so much competition that we never have to or need to give it second chance. If you have the opportunity to drink a root beer, there will almost always be water, sprite, or sweet tea to opt for instead and thus root beer never has the opportunity to earn a middle ground.
I hope this makes sense.
In concurrence with Andrew's statement I believe that RBT is valid only if boldness and distinction are the solitary factors. For instance, the first time I watched Napoleon Dynamite, I was like "seriously?!?", I'm not impressed, but then I found myself quoting a few lines, which made me want to watch it again. When watched again, I quoted more, and like the coffee drug, Napoleon Dynamite entered my veins and made its residence.
Other factors can lead to a blindness of this boldness and distinction. When I walk a rugged trail and see a sassafras plant I pull it up and chew on the root. I do this because it is simply awesome to pull something out of the wild and eat it. The novelty of the situation dominates the other characteristics, such as boldness.
The same can be said of ginger beer, which is Root Beer's older, wilder, and dare I say more evil brother. I would never buy this drink, but I drank it often in Colorado as my only alternate beverage was water. In this case the situation necessitated an RB-like character, as life often needs an RB-like person. An RB person will be known, either in fame or infamy, whereas a a twix person is easily forgotten.
Post a Comment