DEAL, NJ -- What started out as a twitter argument between Isaac Gartenberg and Dorothy Newman soon became the largest study of its kind. The question was simple: are Mystery White Airheads a random, uncolored Airhead, or are they a flavor of their own? No data exists on the subject. Hillel Update Labs assembled three test subjects for a blind taste test in order to solve the mystery. Student Council refused to fund the study (with a total cost of $4) on the ground that spending the small amount would be "unethical." The participants instead funded their own experiment, citing it as "science l'shma."
THE HYPOTHESIS
Perfetti Van Melle, the company responsible for producing the candy, is very shady on the flavor of Mystery White. Different theories exist. Hillel Update Labs set out to answer the question. The theory tested is whether the Mystery White wrappers contain a different flavor of colorless Airhead each time -- hence the mystery. However, the most basic and plausible theory is that it is simply a flavor of its own. This theory gains credibility in that it follows with Occams Razor: the most basic theory is generally true. Producing and wrapping both colored and uncolored versions of each flavor would likely make production costs skyrocket as compared to the cost effectiveness of simply producing a sixth variety. Additionally, the human mind tends to pick up on patterns where there are none -- detecting false traces of other flavors due to common ingredients such as Sugar and Citric Acid. It is predicted that more research will be necessary.
THE EXPERIMENT
The test was rather basic. The participants -- Gartenberg, Newman and the neutral Jason Gindi -- would shield there eyes and eat a piece of an airhead given to them by the researchers. Ten airheads -- one of each standard flavor and 5 Mystery White bars -- were used in the experiment. The participants would then identify the sample as one of the five flavors, or state that they cannot identify the flavor.
Two participants and their wrappers after the fact. |
THE PROCESS (this part has a lot of big science words)
This study is the first of its kind. Nowhere else exists data for either theory. Though only ten bars were tested among three tasters, Hillel Update Labs hopes to expand the test at a later date if the evidence seems to lead somewhere. For the purpose of this study, the term majoritively will imply a 2/3 agreement on the fact. An agreement of at least 66.7% is considered scientifically significant. Conclusively will imply a fact with an error margin of .1 (or 90% agreement). Anything with 90% agreement can be used for conclusions. There are a few facts which the data will determine:
- The standard flavors can majoritively be identified and differentiated from one another. (If the flavors cannot be majoritively identified and differentiated, then the data is faulty and the test is invalid).
- If they are majoritively identified as standard flavors it lends credibility to the Random Flavor Theory. If they are majoritively unidentified it lends credibility to the Sixth Variety Theory. If there is no majority more research is necessary.
- If the individual mystery bars are majoritively identified as specific majoritive flavors, and the individual bars vary in majoritive flavors, the data rules in favor of the Random Flavor Theory. If the individual bars are identified as the same majoritive flavor, the data rules in favor of the Sixth Variety Theory. If the set of bars does not marjoritively a trend of majoritive flavors, more research is necessary.
- Any data which rules conclusively will be viewed with appropriate weight.
If the same result is supported by points 2 and 3 it can be, for the time being, concluded that a specific theory is correct.
EASY VERSION:
1) Do people know what the real flavors are?
2) Do people think the mystery are real flavors?
3) Does everyone agree on which mystery is which flavor?
THE DATA
Test data |
FIRST SET: Identifying standard flavors
- Blue Raspberry was majoritively identified correctly.
- Pink Lemonade was conclusively and majoritively identified correctly.
- Watermelon was majoritively identified correctly.
- Orange was conclusively and majoritively identified correctly.
- Cherry was conclusively and majoritively identified correctly.
ANALYSIS: Standard flavors can be identified and differentiated. The data is valid.
SECOND SET: Identifying mystery bar samples as standard flavors.
- The mystery bar samples were not majoritively identified as standard flavors.
- The mystery bar samples were not majoritively unidentifiable.
ANALYSIS: Though 60% of the mystery bars samples were identified as standard flavors, it does not achieve a 2/3 majority necessary for conclusion.
THIRD SET
- Mystery Bar 1 was majoritively identified as Cherry.
- Mystery Bar 2 was majoritively identified as Watermelon.
- Mystery Bar 3 was majoritively unidentified.
- Mystery Bar 4 was majoritively unidentified.
- Mystery Bar 5 was majoritively identified as Blue Raspberry.
ANALYSIS: Though 60% of the mystery bars were individually identified as specific flavors, it does not achieve a 2/3 majority necessary for conclusion.
THE CONCLUSION
The foremost conclusion is that more research is necessary. The data was valid but more trials must be conducted with a wider range or participants. The data sets rule 60% in favor of the Random Flavor Theory. According to Hillel Update Labs this 60% is not scientifically significant. Another trial with the same participants or perhaps a slightly larger pool of participants may see the number 60% shift up or down slightly. If a further test sees at least a 66.7% agreement towards the Random Flavor Theory, the results will be scientifically significant and a much larger test will be initiated to further zero in that number. If it moves closer to 50% -- the point of ambiguity -- other means of testing must be tried.
THE ANSWER
...is still just out of our grasp. The data does rule 60% in favor of the Random Flavor Theory, this is not a significant percentage and may be a function of the large error margin. The Sixth Variety Theory still has advantages in terms of simplicity, and a 40% share of the data. As for Isaac and Dorothy, they'll have to settle their bet later, and, in the meantime, keep chomping airheads.
THE RESEARCHER'S PERSPECTIVE
I was actually surprised with the results. I expected at least 2/3 to rule in favor of the Sixth Variety Theory. I was surprised when a 3/5 agreement found itself against that theory. I personally did not consider the Random Flavor Theory plausible but now realize that experimentation shows otherwise. But look at me still talking when there's science to do...