Current Events > How are peanuts not nuts?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Like, what is the definition of a nut and why didn't anybody stop to say "hey, if we define nut this way, we're excluding peanuts!"

---

They're not tree nuts (grow on a bush or something), but I think they are still generally considered nuts?

---

Yes, they're still nuts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRl3r4q_dUY

---

that's nuts

Apricots are not really cots. wtf
Grapenuts don't come from grapes nor have nuts, what's up with that?
Strawberries aren't berries, and don't grow on straw.
Bananas are actually berries.
Ect. ect.

---

It's not just the name. They are literally nuts. They have shells, they are the color of nuts, they crunch like nuts, there is literally no way in which they are not exactly like every other nut.

---

Why should anyone involved in the culinary arts care how botanists classify parts of plants? We refer to a lot of botanical fruits as vegetables, a term that does not exist anywhere in botany. So why can't we refer to things like peanuts as nuts rather than the botanical word legume? Therefore, unless you are involved in botany, feel free to classify the various parts of plants as how a chef would.
---

Chefs and botanists classify things differently.

Chefs are more bound by tradition and common perceptions.
---

DevsBro posted...

It's not just the name. They are literally nuts. They have shells, they are the color of nuts, they crunch like nuts, there is literally no way in which they are not exactly like every other nut.

You can literally look up the ways they are different to other nuts. This is just you being upset that you're ignorant about something and don't want to un-ignorant yourself (Which it seems like is basically your entire modus operandi in life, tbqh).

---

That's nuts

---

Pogo_Marimo posted...

You can literally look up the ways they are different to other nuts. This is just you being upset that you're ignorant about something and don't want to un-ignorant yourself (Which it seems like is basically your entire modus operandi in life, tbqh).

More like an insistence that the situation is stupid.

---

People often claim things that are entirely reasonable are stupid because those people are, in fact, the stupid ones. It's the basically just the Dunning-Kruger effect. Who do you think understands the impetus to categorize drupes, legumes, nuts, pods, gymnosperm/angiosperm seeds, carriers, pods, shells, ect., the Botanist with a PHD in Botany, or you, the idiot in this example?

You'll say to yourself, "I know better!" because you're an idiot, and because the Dunning-Krueger effect is strong in you. You think you're smart because you've made up your mind about the way things should be, rather than actually being curious about why things are the way they are. C'est la vie.

---

The only thing dumber than thinking peanuts aren't nuts is trying to defend it with appeal to authority.

---

the Dunning-Kruger effect.

We really needed a fancy term for the idea of humans always thinking they're right? Dunning and Kruger must have hoodwinked a lot of people to get credit over something so simple.

Notti posted...

Chefs and botanists classify things differently.

Chefs are more bound by tradition and common perceptions.

Indeed. Many things we call fruits, berries, nuts, etc. really aren't, biologically speaking.
---

Sir Will posted...

Indeed. Many things we call fruits, berries, nuts, etc. really aren't, biologically speaking.

Yeah, and there's a good reason for that botanically, and there's a good reason to call peanuts "nuts" in culinary terms. It takes very little brain power to figure out that both systems have different criteria they're concerned with--Botanists focus on how plants develop from a seed to a mature adult, how they affect the environments they're in, how they reproduce, how the evolved into their current state, ect. Chefs care about how something tastes, how it feels, how nutritious it is, how accessible it is economically, and how sustainable it is commercially. Why should they be concerned with either one's definitions? If they had to compromise you would end up with either entirely arbitrary definitions, or a unified definition that satisfied neither trade. The logical thing to do is just use which ever definition makes sense for the trade and environment you're in and not get butthurt like a manchild over words.

---

This topic went nuts
---

Also if peanuts aren't nuts how can we be sure pea soup is soup?

---

They're peas

---

Maybe P traps aren't even traps!

---

chickpeas
---

Fucking peacocks, how do they work...
---

Notti posted...

Fucking peacocks, how do they work...

The pea is stored in the cock

---

Irony posted...

The pea is stored in the cock

*looks down at wet pants*

You are indeed wise.
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJnozKvhlS8

I get pee nuts everytime I urinate with my lil pecker.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtHZn5X5bXM
---

Pretty much all of the most commonly-eaten nuts aren't actually nuts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nut_(food)

---

Metua posted...

Pretty much all of the most commonly-eaten nuts aren't actually nuts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nut_(food)

That's a lot of nuts
---

Hotel_Security posted...

the Dunning-Kruger effect.

We really needed a fancy term for the idea of humans always thinking they're right? Dunning and Kruger must have hoodwinked a lot of people to get credit over something so simple.

They were the ones who scientifically proved it though