In defense of umwelt: Credit union horseradish
by. Matt Davis
“To a worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish.” — Yiddish proverb
Moskowitz\u2019 basic idea was that while consumers may have a finite set of preferences, the number is predictably greater than one. Creating products (or services) for the greatest common denominator, or assuming there is a \u201Cperfect\u201D solution for everyone, is a flawed approach that makes no one happy. Simple segmentation can define distinct taste and need sets that require their own solutions. Perfection, he ultimately proved with Prego spaghetti sauce and other consumer goods, is in the eye of the beholder. Subsequently, so is happiness and satisfaction associated with consumption.
While it\u2019s clear what this proverb actually means, I can\u2019t stop thinking about the worm. Does she like horseradish? Would she prefer to be somewhere else? Is this her condiment of choice? Is she at peace in heaven or suffering in her own personal hell?
Great debates emerged in the 1930\u2019s between the ideas of environmental determinism and Jakob von Uexk\u00FCll\u2019s theory of umwelt. Environmental determinism holds that an organism\u2019s very nature is dictated and transformed by its environment. Contrastingly, Uexk\u00FCll believed that, while an objective environment may exist, an organism\u2019s interpretation of this environment is highly subjective. Thus, an organism dictates and transforms its own, subjective, umwelt (literally: \"surrounding world\"). In short Uexk\u00FCll argues that context means everything, and organisms naturally try to optimize its subjective meaning.
","engine":"visual"}" data-block-type="2">When Malcolm Gladwell mentioned the Yiddish proverb “To a worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish” in his 2004 New Yorker article The Ketchup Conundrum, he was referencing a conversation with psychophysicist Howard Moskowitz. The subjective nature of perfection had become an obsession for Moskowitz. He dedicated his career to the idea and spoke to every crowd and ear he could find to explain its merits. It had become his world. His horseradish.
Moskowitz’ basic idea was that while consumers may have a finite set of preferences, the number is predictably greater than one. Creating products (or services) for the greatest common denominator, or assuming there is a “perfect” solution for everyone, is a flawed approach that makes no one happy. Simple segmentation can define distinct taste and need sets that require their own solutions. Perfection, he ultimately proved with Prego spaghetti sauce and other consumer goods, is in the eye of the beholder. Subsequently, so is happiness and satisfaction associated with consumption.
While it’s clear what this proverb actually means, I can’t stop thinking about the worm. Does she like horseradish? Would she prefer to be somewhere else? Is this her condiment of choice? Is she at peace in heaven or suffering in her own personal hell?
Great debates emerged in the 1930’s between the ideas of environmental determinism and Jakob von Uexküll’s theory of umwelt. Environmental determinism holds that an organism’s very nature is dictated and transformed by its environment. Contrastingly, Uexküll believed that, while an objective environment may exist, an organism’s interpretation of this environment is highly subjective. Thus, an organism dictates and transforms its own, subjective, umwelt (literally: “surrounding world”). In short Uexküll argues that context means everything, and organisms naturally try to optimize its subjective meaning.