personality, job, and sex drive based on the way she liked to eat her eggs. Using "sophisticated maths" and just straight up asking 1,010 people about their lives and egg preferences, researchers discovered that if you like yours boiled, you're probably a disorganized mess, careless, and impulsive. And don't lie, you're also divorced aren't you? Because if you're not, it's only a matter of time.
Omelette lovers are self-disciplined with tidy homes. Like your eggs fried? Well then you're probably a young man with a sex drive that's through the roof. Scrambled egg eaters are guarded home-owners with senior-level jobs while those who prefer theirs poached are more often outgoing, happier, and female with two kids and no more than one sibling.
I'm sorry, but come again?
What if I like my eggs scrambled, fried, hard boiled, and omelettized depending on which way the wind's blowing that day. Does that mean I have multiple personality issues? I like them all! Well except that I don't do poached eggs (clearly because I'm too busy crying to partake in such a happy meal), but I'm sure I'd like that, too.
It's not the first time a study linking food and personality has been conducted. In 2009, Alan R. Hirsch, M.D., published an entire book that looked into the food cravings of almost 20,000 people over the course of 25 years. I've read before that chocoholics are assumed to be fun-loving social butterflies, but did you know that this trait to attributed to dark chocolate consumers? If you prefer milk chocolate, like I do, then you're more likely to be on the quieter side.
Salt cravers tend to be easy going and, as Hirsch said, "believe that outside forces determine their fate." A draw to spicy foods supposedly correlates with a dislike for "order and wasting time," which quite naturally makes absolutely no sense to me. If you have a sweet tooth, you're wild and carefree, and if you like sugar as much as salt then you're probably a "loner" with a creative side who sometimes comes off as "standoffish."
All this seems about as legit as predicting a person's day to day happenings based solely on the planets' alignment on his birthdate. A horoscope might be on point for some that fall under one zodiac sign and then be completely off-base for others. Even then, do these predictions hold true every single day of the year? Those blurbs are written with such vagueness that more often than not you can glean some truth or inspiration from them because no matter which sign you read - go on, read them all - you'll probably find affirmations for whatever it is you're looking for.
Take, for example, today's horoscopes from two different signs and tell me if either one speaks to you in some way:
"Are things getting a little bit crazy? Too many tasks and too many people vying for your attention could have your nerves stretched as taut as violin strings. Try to get outside for a while. Treat yourself to a nice lunch or do a little shopping. Take a good long nap. Whatever seems so urgent isn't worth sacrificing your peace of mind. Try to stay focused!"
"A rush of creative inspiration could take you temporarily away from your social life today. At some point you could be working as if there were no tomorrow, perhaps worrying that you will forget it if you don't get it all down now. It's no use telling you to slow down. Be sure to keep sufficient snacks on hand, and do take occasional breaks. Work hard and good luck!"
Neither of these fell under my zodiac sign and yet they both ring true for me today. So I ask, what's the use in making such generalizations using something that might not mean anything other than I'm hungry and like to eat food?
Images: bhg.com and call-me-cupcake.blogspot.se