> I really thought your premise was that "too much licorice" would be what the person felt.
You just said that you thought my premise "had A) relevance to taste", and that's what I don't think you could argue in good faith.
> Because noticing "a weird symptom" won't save your life unless you can figure out the puzzle fast enough.
Yes, there's always someone oblivious enough to die for the most ridiculous reasons. Hence people die from water poisoning for chugging down amounts of water that defy common sense, people that die because they don't have the mental capacity to realize that eating spoonfuls of salt is harmful, and apparently people that die because there is no question in their minds whether a licorice based diet might be harmful.
> Did you not look at the article I linked? "Very few specific appetites for particular nutrients have been identified in humans. The most robustly identified are salt appetite/sodium appetite."
That doesn't substantiate the idea that the perceived taste of salt changes as you eat more of it.
> Also here's why it's not entirely ridiculous to think something like that about licorice: People will figure out associations over time, so you can in fact have a learned ability to detect too much licorice. That's what I thought you were arguing.
Forgive me for not understanding your point, but if on one hand you assume that I'm arguing for the existence of "inbuilt licorice systems" (a really dumb point that a dumb person would make) and on the other hand that I'm arguing for the existence of a learned association (an interesting point that's at least worthy of examination, though ultimately not my point), you aren't making things easy for me.
I'm not calling you a liar.
> I really thought your premise was that "too much licorice" would be what the person felt.
You just said that you thought my premise "had A) relevance to taste", and that's what I don't think you could argue in good faith.
> Because noticing "a weird symptom" won't save your life unless you can figure out the puzzle fast enough.
Yes, there's always someone oblivious enough to die for the most ridiculous reasons. Hence people die from water poisoning for chugging down amounts of water that defy common sense, people that die because they don't have the mental capacity to realize that eating spoonfuls of salt is harmful, and apparently people that die because there is no question in their minds whether a licorice based diet might be harmful.
> Did you not look at the article I linked? "Very few specific appetites for particular nutrients have been identified in humans. The most robustly identified are salt appetite/sodium appetite."
That doesn't substantiate the idea that the perceived taste of salt changes as you eat more of it.
> Also here's why it's not entirely ridiculous to think something like that about licorice: People will figure out associations over time, so you can in fact have a learned ability to detect too much licorice. That's what I thought you were arguing.
Forgive me for not understanding your point, but if on one hand you assume that I'm arguing for the existence of "inbuilt licorice systems" (a really dumb point that a dumb person would make) and on the other hand that I'm arguing for the existence of a learned association (an interesting point that's at least worthy of examination, though ultimately not my point), you aren't making things easy for me.