And in case you're feeling like you've deja'd this, Voo,

如果你覺得你已經知道了，鄔、

I should clarify that he's re-launching his chocolate bar with a brand new formula.

我應該說明的是，他將重新推出採用全新配方的巧克力棒。

And this time around, he doesn't want it to just taste better than Hershey's chocolate.

這一次，他不希望它只是比好時巧克力更美味。

He wants it to be

他希望

THE BEST ON EARTH!

地球上最好的

He did a whole video about it and everything.

他做了一個完整的視頻，講述了這一切。

Had a skit, good structure.

有一個小品，結構很好。

Honestly, 10 out of 10.

說實話，10 分滿分。

But then, he finished it off showing a taste test, which set off all sorts of food theory alarms.

不過，他最後還做了一個味覺測試，引發了各種食物理論警報。

Why?

為什麼？

Because it was impossible for Feastables to lose.

因為宴席公司不可能輸。

Hello, internet!

你好，互聯網！

Welcome to Food Theory, the richest tasting food show with a brand new formula.

歡迎收看《美食理論》，這是一檔採用全新配方、口味最豐富的美食節目。

Now, I'm not exactly someone with the biggest sweet tooth.

現在，我並不是一個最愛吃甜食的人。

But when Mr. Beast announced his brand new chocolate bars,

但是，當野獸先生宣佈他的全新巧克力棒時、

I figured I'd try them out.

我想我應該試一試。

Especially because in classic YouTube clickbait fashion, he said it's the BEST TASTING CHOCOLATE EVER MADE BY MANKIND!

特別是因為他以典型的 YouTube 點擊誘餌方式，說這是人類有史以來味道最好的巧克力！

Admittedly, when I compared them to his old bars, yeah, they definitely tasted better and more chocolaty.

誠然，當我把它們和他以前的巧克力棒相比時，是的，它們的味道肯定更好，巧克力味更濃。

But the best tasting chocolate bar ever?

但最好吃的巧克力棒呢？

Ever ever?

永遠永遠？

Ever ever?

永遠永遠？

That's a pretty bold claim.

這是一個非常大膽的說法。

He decided he would try and back it up and prove that his chocolate was the best, though, through a blind taste test.

不過，他決定通過盲品測試來證明自己的巧克力是最好的。

So I set up a random warehouse where I'm going to invite hundreds of strangers to do a blind taste test on our brand new chocolate.

於是，我隨機設立了一個倉庫，邀請數百名陌生人對我們的全新巧克力進行盲品測試。

Now, I love a good food experiment.

我喜歡美食實驗。

And we're no strangers to taste tests on this channel, but seeing Feastables come out on top so handedly made me want to take a closer look at the whole thing.

我們對本頻道的口味測試並不陌生，但看到 Feastables 如此輕鬆地拔得頭籌，我就想仔細研究一下整件事。

As I watched the video, I noticed something.

在觀看視頻時，我注意到了一件事。

Everything from the placement of the chocolates to the order in which they were eaten was designed to get Feastables to be the winner.

從巧克力的擺放位置到吃巧克力的順序，都是為了讓 Feastables 成為贏家。

While the contestants may have had no clue which chocolate was which,

雖然選手們可能不知道哪塊巧克力是哪塊、

Jimmy's team made the experiment so that it would essentially be fail-proof in Feastables' favor.

吉米的團隊所做的實驗從根本上保證了盛宴公司不會失敗。

And after the fact, they made it pretty difficult for us to double check their work when it came to what they actually revealed in the video itself.

事後，他們讓我們很難再次核實他們在視頻中的實際內容。

Pretty suspicious, if you ask me.

要我說，這很可疑。

Am I saying that Mr. Beast,

我是在說野獸先生嗎？

THE Jimmy Donaldson, deliberately set up the test so that his chocolate would win?

吉米-唐納森故意設置測試，讓他的巧克力獲勝？

Actually, no.

事實上，沒有。

Let me be clear.

讓我把話說清楚。

I'm not trying to dunk on Jimmy.

我不是想給吉米扣籃。

At least not in my third week of being host.

至少在我擔任主持人的第三週不會。

His team, though?

他的團隊呢？

Fair game.

公平競爭。

And while Jimmy was probably busy catapulting sports cars into the horizon or something,

而吉米可能正忙著把跑車彈射到地平線上什麼的、

I'm sure that this test was designed by his team so that Feastables couldn't lose.

我敢肯定，他的團隊設計這個測試的目的，就是為了不讓 Feastables 輸掉比賽。

But here's the thing.

但問題是

They may not have done it all on purpose.

他們可能不是故意的。

In fact, they may have unknowingly skewed the results of the experiment in their favor.

事實上，他們可能在不知不覺中歪曲了實驗結果，使之對自己有利。

So, did Mr. Beast accidentally make it so that Feastables couldn't fail in this test?

那麼，野獸先生是否不小心讓 "可食用食品 "無法在這次測試中失敗呢？

That, my friends, is what I'm going to find out today.

朋友們，這就是我今天要了解的。

First off, why did Mr. Beast do a blind taste test at all?

首先，野獸先生為什麼要進行盲品測試？

Was that just a random idea his team came up with?

這只是他的團隊隨便想出來的嗎？

No.

不

Blind taste tests are something food companies do all the time.

盲品測試是食品公司經常做的事情。

They do this so they can collect data and compare it to similar products or competitors.

他們這樣做是為了收集數據，並與同類產品或競爭對手進行比較。

When removing any branding, packaging, or anything like that, the thought is it takes away any bias or favoritism someone might have toward a particular brand and allow them to judge solely on the taste.

當去除任何品牌、包裝或類似的東西時，我們的想法是消除人們對特定品牌的偏見或偏愛，讓他們只根據味道來判斷。

Probably the most famous example of this was the Pepsi challenge back in 1983.

最有名的例子可能就是 1983 年的百事可樂挑戰賽。

That year, Pepsi ran an advertising campaign where they went to supermarkets across America asking them to blind taste test Pepsi and their biggest competitor, Coca-Cola, who before this test was the choice for sodas.

那一年，百事可樂開展了一項廣告活動，他們到全美的超市要求顧客對百事可樂和他們最大的競爭對手可口可樂進行盲品測試，在這次測試之前，可口可樂是汽水的首選。

What's shocking is that the underdog Pepsi came out on top and showed that a giant like Coke could in fact bleed.

令人震驚的是，處於劣勢的百事可樂後來居上，向人們展示了可口可樂這樣的巨頭其實也會流血。

Pepsi obviously advertised this amazing result.

顯然，百事可樂為這一驚人效果做了廣告。

Coca-Cola was outraged by this.

可口可樂公司對此非常憤怒。

They started issuing press releases, questioning the validity of Pepsi's taste test, and actually tried to sue Pepsi.

他們開始發佈新聞稿，質疑百事可樂口味測試的有效性，甚至試圖起訴百事可樂。

But this blind taste test showed that branding isn't everything and sometimes it can actually cloud our judgment.

但這次盲品測試表明，品牌並不代表一切，有時它反而會影響我們的判斷。

Pepsi's market share more than doubled from 6% to 14%, showing that people had probably overlooked it in favor of Coke up until that point.

百事可樂的市場份額從 6% 增長到 14%，增長了一倍多，這說明在此之前，人們很可能忽略了百事可樂，而對可口可樂青睞有加。

But you know what hasn't been overlooked?

但你知道什麼沒有被忽視嗎？

All of you that responded to our community post a couple of weeks ago showing your excitement for our upcoming episodes.

所有在幾周前回復我們的社區帖子，對我們即將播出的劇集表示興奮的朋友們。

And for those of you chomping at the bit for the microwave episode, don't worry, that's coming up next week.

對於那些迫不及待想知道微波爐情節的人，別擔心，下週就會播出。

So make sure you hit the subscribe button so you don't miss that or future episodes where we break down whether party size or family size or a massive scam or even the famed gargling episode.

是以，請務必點擊訂閱按鈕，這樣您就不會錯過這一集，或者今後我們將討論派對規模、家庭規模、大型騙局，甚至著名的漱口情節。

I promise you though, it'll be one that you don't want to miss.

不過我向你保證，你一定不會錯過。

But back to today's topic.

回到今天的話題。

If you haven't seen the video,

如果你還沒看過視頻

Jimmy set out four different chocolates with no branding or labeling convention of any sort for the participants.

吉米為參賽者準備了四種不同的巧克力，沒有任何品牌或標籤約定俗成。

Going up against Feastables were Lint, the pricey Icelandic chocolate, and Cadbury.

與 Feastables 競爭的是價格昂貴的冰島巧克力 Lint 和吉百利。

An odd and suspicious choice made by them is that not all the chocolates were the same.

他們做出的一個奇怪而可疑的選擇是，並非所有巧克力都是一樣的。

While Feastables, Icelandic, and Cadbury were milk chocolate,

而 Feastables、冰島和吉百利則是牛奶巧克力、

Lint seemed to be 75% dark.

棉絮似乎有 75% 是深色的。

What?

什麼？

That is a huge difference in flavor profile.

這就是風味的巨大差異。

It's like adding in a Sprite when you're doing a cola taste test.

這就像在做可樂口味測試時加入雪碧一樣。

Every round had the chocolates set out in the same order in front of the testers.

每一輪測試中，巧克力都按照同樣的順序擺放在測試者面前。

And judging from the participants referring to Feastables as the first chocolate, we can also assume they ate them in the same order from left to right.

而且，從參與者把 Feastables 稱作第一塊巧克力來看，我們也可以認為他們是按照從左到右的順序吃的。

Now, this brings up a point

這就引出了一個問題

I want to tackle first.

我想先解決這個問題。

We don't actually know the design of the test and we have to go by what were presented in the video.

我們實際上並不知道測試的設計，只能根據視頻中的內容來判斷。

And to be clear, this is absolutely a knock against the whole experiment.

說白了，這絕對是對整個實驗的抨擊。

We as the audience are sort of just expected to take what we see at face value without any further details, which leads me to the second point.

作為觀眾，我們只能從表面現象出發，而無法瞭解更多細節，這就引出了第二點。

And that is that there are no statistics for us to look at.

那就是我們沒有統計數據可查。

We don't know how many people tested the chocolate and we don't know what percentage of them actually chose Feastables.

我們不知道有多少人測試過巧克力，也不知道其中有多大比例的人真正選擇了 Feastables。

The video shows most of the people voting for Feastables, but that may not be the whole story.

視頻顯示大多數人投票給了 Feastables，但這可能不是故事的全部。

Maybe he figured it was a quick video and he didn't have to show any numbers, but here at Food Theory, we need the numbers.

也許他認為這是一個快速視頻，不需要顯示任何數字，但在《食物理論》這裡，我們需要數字。

We live on cold, hard facts.

我們靠冷冰冰的事實生活。

But even with that aside,

但即便如此

I noticed something else about the taste test.

我還注意到味覺測試的其他一些情況。

The way the chocolates were presented on that table actually had a huge effect on the results.

實際上，巧克力在桌子上的擺放方式對結果有很大影響。

The first big thing comes from the fact that many of us naturally focus on things to our left because of how we read.

第一件大事來自於這樣一個事實：由於我們的閱讀方式，我們中的許多人都會自然而然地把注意力集中在左邊的事物上。

That's right.

這就對了。

The way we read causes us to bring more attention to things on the left of our field of view.

我們的閱讀方式會讓我們更多地關注視野左側的事物。

This psychological study, which holds the title for the most boring name, exploring something so cool, conducted an experiment to prove this left side bias.

這項心理學研究擁有 "最無聊名稱 "的稱號，但它探索的東西卻如此酷炫，它進行了一項實驗來證明這種左側偏差。

You know what?

你知道嗎？

Actually, you can see this for yourself.

其實，你可以自己去看看。

On screen right now, you'll see two circles, A and B.

現在在螢幕上，你會看到 A 和 B 兩個圓圈。

Now, because English speakers read left to right, your attention will first go to circle A.

現在，由於講英語的人是從左往右閱讀的，所以你的注意力會首先放在 A 圈上。

Then your brain will quickly shift your attention to the right, to circle B, because that's the direction you normally read it.

然後，你的大腦會迅速將注意力轉移到右邊的 B 圈，因為那是你通常閱讀的方向。

But when you shift your attention back to circle A, your brain hesitates because it sort of says,

但是，當你把注意力轉移回 A 圈時，你的大腦會猶豫不決，因為它會說、

I've checked there already.

我已經檢查過了。

What are you doing, you idiot?

你在幹什麼，白痴？

But this causes it to linger on that left side longer, creating an unconscious favoritism toward anything on that side.

但這會導致它在左側停留更長時間，從而在無意識中偏愛左側的任何東西。

We know it's linked to the way we read because the same test was conducted on Arabic speaking people who read right to left, and they found the exact opposite bias.

我們知道這與我們的閱讀方式有關，因為對講阿拉伯語的人進行了同樣的測試，他們從右向左閱讀，結果發現了完全相反的偏差。

They favored the right hand side.

他們偏愛右側。

What this means for the taste test is that people's attention would naturally have been geared toward the far left chocolate, Feastables.

這對品嚐測試的意義在於，人們的注意力會自然而然地轉向最左邊的巧克力--Feastables。

Not only did it mean that throughout the experiment, people's focus would have stayed on this chocolate, but if you watch the video, you'll see that most people actually chose it first.

這不僅意味著在整個實驗過程中，人們的注意力都會停留在這塊巧克力上，而且如果你觀看視頻，你會發現大多數人實際上都首先選擇了這塊巧克力。

This opens up a Pandora's box of unconscious bias and unfair favoritism toward Jimmy's chocolate, namely in the forms of the primacy and anchoring biases.

這就打開了一個潘多拉盒子，裡面裝滿了對吉米巧克力的無意識偏見和不公平偏袒，即首要偏見和錨定偏見。

The primacy bias is a psychological tendency to prioritize information that's presented first in a sequence.

首要性偏差是一種心理傾向，即在一個序列中優先考慮最先呈現的資訊。

This happens because we get more time to process the information, which then leads to people giving more weight to the thing they encounter first and giving less importance to the things that come after.

出現這種情況是因為我們有更多的時間來處理資訊，這就導致人們更重視他們首先遇到的事情，而不太重視後面的事情。

In this case, the first chocolate, Feastables, would leave a stronger impression in the minds of the participants, skewing their judgment in favor of it as the one to beat.

在這種情況下，第一塊巧克力 "Feastables "會在參與者心中留下更深刻的印象，從而使他們的判斷偏向於這塊巧克力。

It's kind of like love at first sight or first taste.

這有點像一見鍾情或初嘗美味。

Yeah, you get the point.

是的，你明白我的意思。

Once that primacy bias is established, the next thing that happens is your brain creates an anchoring bias.

一旦首要偏差建立起來，接下來發生的事情就是你的大腦會產生一種錨定偏差。

Anchoring bias basically means that our brains tend to anchor our decisions based on the first piece of information we receive, even if that information is irrelevant or just straight up wrong.

錨定偏差的基本意思是，我們的大腦傾向於根據收到的第一條資訊做出決定，即使該資訊無關緊要或直接就是錯誤的。

This may sound similar to primacy bias, but there is some nuance here.

這聽起來可能與優先權偏差相似，但這裡有一些細微差別。

See, primacy bias causes you to potentially obtain a skewed, heightened opinion of the first chocolate you taste, whereas anchoring bias makes that the yardstick by which you measure every other chocolate.

你看，"首要偏見 "會讓你對品嚐的第一塊巧克力產生歪曲的、更高的評價，而 "錨定偏見 "則會讓你用這塊巧克力作為衡量其他每塊巧克力的標準。

You essentially latch onto a piece of information that then influences everything else.

你基本上是抓住了一條資訊，然後影響了其他一切。

In the video, we hear participants talk about the richness of the chocolate.

在視頻中，我們聽到參與者談論巧克力的濃郁口感。

It's a little bit richer than the other one.

它比另一個更豐富一些。

This may have been the anchor for many of them, so they try the others and think, hmm, this one wasn't as rich as the first one, or this one was way too rich compared to that first one.

這可能是他們中許多人的錨，所以他們嘗試其他的，然後想，嗯，這個沒有第一個豐富，或者這個比第一個太豐富了。

Either way, their thoughts always came back to the anchor, which was feastables.

無論如何，他們的思緒總是回到錨上，那就是盛宴。

But Jedi mind tricks weren't the only way that Jimmy hacked this test.

不過，絕地心靈技巧並不是吉米破解測試的唯一方法。

Mr. Beast's chocolate being eaten first by the participants gave it another leg up, or should I say tongue up when it comes to how our taste buds work.

野獸先生的巧克力首先被參賽者吃掉，這又給了它一個機會，或者說，在我們的味蕾如何工作的問題上，它又給了我們一個機會。

When we consume something sweet, our taste buds naturally become suppressed and the sensitivity of that taste decreases.

當我們吃甜食時，味蕾會自然受到抑制，對這種味道的敏感度也會降低。

This makes everything after that first sample taste less sweet.

這樣一來，第一個樣品之後的所有東西嚐起來都不那麼甜了。

Like I mentioned earlier, testers in the video kept saying things like feastables was richer or sweeter than the others.

就像我之前提到的，視頻中的測試者一直在說，f feastables 比其他的更濃郁或更甜。

But that's always going to be the case because the taste buds for sweetness have become more suppressed after the first chocolate, so the others won't appear as sweet in relation.

但情況總是這樣，因為吃過第一塊巧克力後，甜味的味蕾就會受到抑制，所以其他巧克力就不會顯得那麼甜了。

This is called sensory adaptation.

這就是所謂的感官適應。

Our taste buds adapt to the sweet flavor and are less sensitive to others appearing to be much blander.

我們的味蕾會適應甜味，而對其他味道則不那麼敏感，因為其他味道看起來要平淡得多。

That's exactly what we're seeing in this blind taste test.

這正是我們在這次盲品測試中所看到的。

And by the way, this can happen across all senses.

順便說一句，這種情況可能發生在所有感官上。

Have you ever noticed how you can be jamming in the car at full volume like it's nobody else's business and you don't realize that you've cranked it up all the way?

你有沒有注意到，當你在車內盡情享受音樂時，你可能會把音量開到最大，而自己卻渾然不覺。

But then the next time you get in your car, you turn it on and it's so loud.

但下一次你上車後，打開車門，聲音就會變得非常大。

That is sensory adaptation.

這就是感官適應。

During your first ride, your ears become accustomed to the loud volume.

第一次騎行時，您的耳朵會逐漸適應大音量。

They get fatigued and adapt to be less responsive to sound.

它們會感到疲倦，對聲音的反應也會隨之減弱。

Then after some time passes where you don't listen to things at eardrum rupturing levels, when you turn your car on, you're more sensitive to sound and the exact same thing happens with our taste buds, except it happens even faster.

一段時間後，當你聽的聲音沒有達到耳膜破裂的程度時，當你打開汽車時，你就會對聲音更加敏感，同樣的事情也會發生在我們的味蕾上，只不過發生得更快而已。

It's worth mentioning that this is not where you become numb to certain flavors due to overconsumption over a long period.

值得一提的是，這並不是因為長期過量食用而對某些味道變得麻木。

That's entirely different.

這是完全不同的。

We're just talking about the fast initial adaptation to our taste buds after eating something.

我們只是在談論吃東西后味蕾最初的快速適應。

Every element of the taste test skewed the results in favor of feastables coming out on top.

味覺測試的每一個環節都使結果向盛宴食品傾斜。

And I have a hard time believing it was all inadvertent.

我很難相信這一切都是無心之過。

The choice of chocolates was definitely more than suspicious.

巧克力的選擇絕對不只是可疑。

For one, poor old Hershey's kept getting name checked and wasn't even put in the taste test.

首先，可憐的好時巧克力一直被點名，甚至都沒有參加口味測試。

How are you going to do them dirty like that?

你怎麼能把他們弄得那麼髒？