Man, to this day the phrase “take it with a grain of salt” makes no sense to me. For one, I see people use the phrase(as above) as adding a singular grain of salt… which wouldn’t do anything. But if, as suggested here, it’s more to point out that further seasoning and/or flavoring isn’t required, then what… what? Are we eating information? What does that even mean? If it’s seasoned, then why does that mean I should be skeptical? If someone makes something I would be skeptical of, why tf would I eat it?
I actually looked this up because it was(still is) driving me crazy. A possible origin of the phrase goes back to Pliny the Elder adding a grain of salt to a poisin antidote. Maybe it was to make the antidote easier to ingest(which, once again, a singular grain wouldn’t make a difference, so it’s possible that it’s a pinch)? So we’re skeptical of the antidote when we’re calling the info given poisin??? But it could also be the case that a popular myth was that a pinch of salt neutralized poison, possibly referring to a misunderstanding of Pliny the Elder’s recipe. But if something is poisoned, don’t fucking eat/drink it? Like seriously, if someone you don’t trust gives you food/drink that you think could be poisoned, and we even temporarily grant that a grain/pinch of salt neutralizes the pain, it STILL doesn’t make sense, because why would you accept anything from that person at all if you think they’re trying to kill you??? ALSO ONCE AGAIN, ARE WE EATING INFORMATION IN THIS HYPOTHETICAL??? WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN?
And then I’ve seen the camp of using salt as a currency, leaning into the value aspect of it, suggesting adding a singular grain of salt finally gives it value(which, like… is that what you mean?). Since the phrase is supposed to invoke skepticism, I’d imagine the value measured is truth? So if the salt you take the information with is skepticism, then how does the skepticism alter the truth value? And, again, if the information is worthless don’t buy it for any price, same as don’t eat the fucking poisin. At least in this scenario we’re not eating information.
In any case, and even aside from whether or not the idiom even makes sense, I don’t understand why the phrase is even used at all to advise skepticism since any usage I’ve ever heard or read of it is clearly(to me) redundant and/or unwarranted. “This comment comes from [unreliable source], so take it with a grain of salt.” Yeah? It’s an unreliable source. If someone already knew, the added idiom is kinda insulting. If someone didn’t know or disagreed(that it’s unreliable), then the added idiom only serves to add confusion. “The numbers may look promising, but take it with a grain of salt.” Okay? Yeah, obviously don’t draw conclusions from just “the numbers” as there’s always more to whatever form of statistical analysis this hypothetical is, but it’s totally unclear what the idiom is even trying to say. The numbers lie? The numbers are an anomaly? The source is unreliable? It actually looks bad if you look closer? And if it’s to point out that it could be any of those things and more, well no shit, bro. Once again, if someone already knows to be skeptical, it’s insulting and unwarranted, if someone doesn’t know to be skeptical, they need to be informed of the reason to be skeptical before “be skeptical” makes any sense. It’s functionally useless.
I don’t get it. I don’t get the appeal, I don’t understand how’s it’s supposed to mean what it’s supposed to mean, even granting that language and phrases evolve in strange ways. I don’t understand how and why people use it. I don’t understand how people see logic in it. I dunno, maybe I’m the idiot here.
TL;DR: Please stop eating information, thank you. I don’t understand the phrase, so take it with a grain of salt(?).
Oh hey, I appreciate you engaging with my absurd and irrationally earnest beef with this idiom.
So I hear what you’re saying about salt helping with bitter flavors, but I don’t think the flavor of poison is the primary issue with why you wouldn’t want to ingest it. I think my point still stands that if we’re doing this weird eating information thing, you still just don’t eat it if it’s poison, regardless of whether you do or don’t have an antidote. Or a way to flavor it.
I was actually aware of the Latin word translated as salt for this idiom also meaning wit, and I’m actually glad you brought it up. “Consider this with a grain of wit” would be a fantastic idiom and I’d be all for it. All the more reason “take it with a grain of salt” makes no sense if it’s a bad translation.
I understand the idiom stands as it does in our language because language standards are more about usage than rigid systemic rules, but COME ON! There’s gotta be a line, right? I get that trying to standardize language is real tricky and historically has been very problematic (looking at you, rich Victorian British fucks), but man, some of these things are so useless that they couldn’t even qualify as filler words. I know it’s weird how hard I hate this fucking idiom, but also fuck this idiom.
Not trying to throw shade your way, just to be clear. I appreciate your engagement. All shade reserved for this damn idiom, though.
Having listened to a podcast highlighting Thiel’s life in great detail, anything he is involved with has to be taken with an oceans’ worth of salt.
Fwiw…
If an oceans worth of salt, that means there’s a lot of substance to be considered (seasoned).
It’s “grain of salt” because there’s not a lot to it (to be seasoned).
It seems like the prevailing theory is that it’s a Latin pun where “salis” means both salt and wit/intelligence/sense.
More “salt” would be more “sense”.
the more you know
Except that salt negates bitter flavors. So if you have a bitter pill to swallow, you take it with a grain of salt and it isn’t as bad.
Thiel is involved in shit so bitter that it would take an ocean’s worth of salt to swallow.
You definitely lost the metaphor here. Salt does not negate or in any way cover bitter flavors.
You obviously don’t know how salt works.
https://www.nature.com/articles/42388
Besides, the actual origin of “take with a grain of salt” comes from Pliny the Elder, who believed salt to be part of a cure for poison.
His actual words were “addito salis grano” or add a grain of salt.
He believed this because salt suppresses bitter flavors and most poisonous things taste fairly bitter.
The phase “cum grano salis” or with a grain of salt, then entered latin, and eventually a few other languages.
Man, to this day the phrase “take it with a grain of salt” makes no sense to me. For one, I see people use the phrase(as above) as adding a singular grain of salt… which wouldn’t do anything. But if, as suggested here, it’s more to point out that further seasoning and/or flavoring isn’t required, then what… what? Are we eating information? What does that even mean? If it’s seasoned, then why does that mean I should be skeptical? If someone makes something I would be skeptical of, why tf would I eat it?
I actually looked this up because it was(still is) driving me crazy. A possible origin of the phrase goes back to Pliny the Elder adding a grain of salt to a poisin antidote. Maybe it was to make the antidote easier to ingest(which, once again, a singular grain wouldn’t make a difference, so it’s possible that it’s a pinch)? So we’re skeptical of the antidote when we’re calling the info given poisin??? But it could also be the case that a popular myth was that a pinch of salt neutralized poison, possibly referring to a misunderstanding of Pliny the Elder’s recipe. But if something is poisoned, don’t fucking eat/drink it? Like seriously, if someone you don’t trust gives you food/drink that you think could be poisoned, and we even temporarily grant that a grain/pinch of salt neutralizes the pain, it STILL doesn’t make sense, because why would you accept anything from that person at all if you think they’re trying to kill you??? ALSO ONCE AGAIN, ARE WE EATING INFORMATION IN THIS HYPOTHETICAL??? WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN?
And then I’ve seen the camp of using salt as a currency, leaning into the value aspect of it, suggesting adding a singular grain of salt finally gives it value(which, like… is that what you mean?). Since the phrase is supposed to invoke skepticism, I’d imagine the value measured is truth? So if the salt you take the information with is skepticism, then how does the skepticism alter the truth value? And, again, if the information is worthless don’t buy it for any price, same as don’t eat the fucking poisin. At least in this scenario we’re not eating information.
In any case, and even aside from whether or not the idiom even makes sense, I don’t understand why the phrase is even used at all to advise skepticism since any usage I’ve ever heard or read of it is clearly(to me) redundant and/or unwarranted. “This comment comes from [unreliable source], so take it with a grain of salt.” Yeah? It’s an unreliable source. If someone already knew, the added idiom is kinda insulting. If someone didn’t know or disagreed(that it’s unreliable), then the added idiom only serves to add confusion. “The numbers may look promising, but take it with a grain of salt.” Okay? Yeah, obviously don’t draw conclusions from just “the numbers” as there’s always more to whatever form of statistical analysis this hypothetical is, but it’s totally unclear what the idiom is even trying to say. The numbers lie? The numbers are an anomaly? The source is unreliable? It actually looks bad if you look closer? And if it’s to point out that it could be any of those things and more, well no shit, bro. Once again, if someone already knows to be skeptical, it’s insulting and unwarranted, if someone doesn’t know to be skeptical, they need to be informed of the reason to be skeptical before “be skeptical” makes any sense. It’s functionally useless.
I don’t get it. I don’t get the appeal, I don’t understand how’s it’s supposed to mean what it’s supposed to mean, even granting that language and phrases evolve in strange ways. I don’t understand how and why people use it. I don’t understand how people see logic in it. I dunno, maybe I’m the idiot here.
TL;DR: Please stop eating information, thank you. I don’t understand the phrase, so take it with a grain of salt(?).
Two things. Salt suppresses bitter flavors. Most poisonous things are bitter.
This suppression works even when you can’t taste the salt.
this is why you need to salt your eggplant slices before grilling them.
Anyway, another element is that salis, the Roman word for salt, also means wit or intelligence, but more wit.
Oh hey, I appreciate you engaging with my absurd and irrationally earnest beef with this idiom.
So I hear what you’re saying about salt helping with bitter flavors, but I don’t think the flavor of poison is the primary issue with why you wouldn’t want to ingest it. I think my point still stands that if we’re doing this weird eating information thing, you still just don’t eat it if it’s poison, regardless of whether you do or don’t have an antidote. Or a way to flavor it.
I was actually aware of the Latin word translated as salt for this idiom also meaning wit, and I’m actually glad you brought it up. “Consider this with a grain of wit” would be a fantastic idiom and I’d be all for it. All the more reason “take it with a grain of salt” makes no sense if it’s a bad translation.
I understand the idiom stands as it does in our language because language standards are more about usage than rigid systemic rules, but COME ON! There’s gotta be a line, right? I get that trying to standardize language is real tricky and historically has been very problematic (looking at you, rich Victorian British fucks), but man, some of these things are so useless that they couldn’t even qualify as filler words. I know it’s weird how hard I hate this fucking idiom, but also fuck this idiom.
Not trying to throw shade your way, just to be clear. I appreciate your engagement. All shade reserved for this damn idiom, though.