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

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

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

He wants it to be

THE BEST ON EARTH!

He did a whole video about it and everything.

Had a skit, good structure.

Honestly, 10 out of 10.

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

Why?

Because it was impossible for Feastables to lose.

Hello, internet!

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

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

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

I figured I'd try them out.

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

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

But the best tasting chocolate bar ever?

Ever ever?

Ever ever?

That's a pretty bold claim.

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

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.

Now, I love a good food experiment.

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.

As I watched the video, I noticed something.

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

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

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

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.

Pretty suspicious, if you ask me.

Am I saying that Mr. Beast,

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

Actually, no.

Let me be clear.

I'm not trying to dunk on Jimmy.

At least not in my third week of being host.

His team, though?

Fair game.

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

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

But here's the thing.

They may not have done it all on purpose.

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

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

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

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

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

No.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

Pepsi obviously advertised this amazing result.

Coca-Cola was outraged by this.

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

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

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.

But you know what hasn't been overlooked?

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

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

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.

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

But back to today's topic.

If you haven't seen the video,

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

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

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

While Feastables, Icelandic, and Cadbury were milk chocolate,

Lint seemed to be 75% dark.

What?

That is a huge difference in flavor profile.

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

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

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.

Now, this brings up a point

I want to tackle first.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

We live on cold, hard facts.

But even with that aside,

I noticed something else about the taste test.

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

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

That's right.

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

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.

You know what?

Actually, you can see this for yourself.

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

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

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

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

I've checked there already.

What are you doing, you idiot?

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

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.

They favored the right hand side.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Yeah, you get the point.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

This makes everything after that first sample taste less sweet.

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

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.

This is called sensory adaptation.

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

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

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

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?

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

That is sensory adaptation.

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

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

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.

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

That's entirely different.

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

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

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

The choice of chocolates was definitely more than suspicious.

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

How are you going to do them dirty like that?

You say your new formula makes your chocolate the best tasting ever made by mankind, but you don't put it up against the most popular brand in America?

That's just poor experimental design, Jimmy.

Speaking of bad design,

I mentioned that not all the chocolates were the same kind.

But now, taking everything we've learned, the left to right bias we talked about would make it so that this dark chocolate was guaranteed to be tried straight after feastables, which would increase the bitterness of dark chocolate and create a greater contrast, amplifying the primacy and anchoring biases.

In the participants' minds, their opinion of the first chocolate would skyrocket even more thanks to the bitter taste in their mouths after the second, making it another anchor.

So basically, for the rest of the chocolates, they'd say, well, it's not as bad as the second, but the first one was better.

Mr. Beast used everything from the choice of chocolate to their placements in order to essentially hack the testers' minds and bodies so that feastables would be the winner.

But I don't want to just tear apart his taste test.

In fact, I decided to put his chocolate where my mouth is and conduct my own improved taste test with the help of some familiar faces from Team Theorist.

I had to wrangle them and convince them they wouldn't be eating

Christmas tree, but I finally got

Josiah, Rachel, Ash, and Lee to be my taste testers for four chocolates.

And this time around, we tagged in Hershey's milk chocolate and swapped out Icelandic for it.

Oh, and Lint, we switched over to its milk chocolate version so that all the brands could at least be the same type of chocolate.

In order for them to not be able to see which chocolate was which,

I blindfolded them to avoid anyone making any assumptions based on looks.

And it was a little bit for me because it was hilarious watching them just fumble around for their water and the saltines and the chocolates.

I could have just handed everything to them, but this was way better.

And to combat the anchoring and primacy bias even further, everyone went through and tested the chocolates twice.

In between each round, we rearranged the order so that they could give a fair assessment of the chocolate they tried first.