In layman's terms, food intake theory states; you are what you eat. It was developed after a long period of introspection (near decade), and is still under test. It extends to national stereotypes, policy, and health, although the evidence falls short here (begins to seriously wane). Below is some WHO data compiled in 2008 both illustrating and failing to illustrate the hypothesis. The major determiners being meat consumption, where traditional interpretations may hold;
- Chicken - peace, non-aggression
- Bovine - independence, strength
- Pig - lowest common denominator (conformity, opposition to change, carelessness, self-satisfaction)
- Sheep - happiness in group; positive outlook
- Fish - appreciation / timidity (of big blue world)
What follows also, is that if you remove one or more of these from diet, you can get an apparent negative impact - leading to conceptualisations like 'extremism'. Behavioural expectation (including interpretations of 'arrogance') is dependent upon dominant intake. It can therefore, arguably, be viewed as a self-enforcing hypothesis.
