Re:Thinking with Adam GrantWhy your nose and sense of smell is secretly controlling your life | ReThinking with Adam Grant
CHAPTERS
- 0:00 – 1:05
Adam’s extreme food aversions and the supertaster hypothesis
Rachel Herz reacts to Adam Grant’s long list of hated foods and smells, framing it as a potential case of supertasting and heightened sensory intensity. The conversation sets up the core theme: individual differences in taste and smell can shape everyday preferences and behaviors.
- •Adam lists strong aversions (chocolate, bitter foods, coffee/alcohol smells)
- •Rachel introduces the concept of “supertaster” and bitter sensitivity
- •Taste intensity is positioned as a biological difference, not pickiness
- •Early hints that smell (not just taste) may explain some dislikes
- 1:05 – 2:37
Chocolate, Skittles vs. M&M’s, and why smell can dominate flavor
Adam tells a story about instantly detecting a single M&M among many Skittles, illustrating extreme sensitivity. Rachel reframes the “chocolate disgust” as likely driven by aroma perception and receptor differences, not just taste buds.
- •Adam’s Skittles/M&M’s story as an intensity demonstration
- •Rachel attributes chocolate aversion to aroma and olfactory genetics
- •Idea of receptor variants/copy number affecting perception strength
- •Practical takeaway: smell can be the deciding factor in flavor experience
- 2:37 – 3:33
Cilantro genetics and missing receptors: why “soap” wins for some people
Rachel explains the classic cilantro divide through olfactory receptor differences: some people can’t detect the pleasant herbaceous notes. Without that signal, the soapy component becomes the dominant experience.
- •Cilantro dislike linked to olfactory receptor variation
- •People who love cilantro perceive an herbaceous note others can’t
- •Soapy quality is broadly detectable but usually masked for “cilantro lovers”
- •Genetics can create radically different flavor worlds
- 3:33 – 5:15
What causes supertasting—and how it runs in families
Adam asks what made him a supertaster, and Rachel emphasizes it’s largely genetic: taste-bud density and specific alleles inherited from parents. The discussion extends to family patterns and the likelihood of children inheriting sensitivity.
- •Supertasting described as genetic and outside personal control
- •Two copies of a particular allele linked to high taste-bud sensitivity
- •Family history (e.g., grandmother also hating chocolate) supports inheritance
- •Probability of children inheriting the trait based on parents’ alleles
- 5:15 – 6:37
Supertasters vs. non-tasters: who makes the better chef?
They explore the misconception that supertasting automatically confers culinary advantage. Rachel notes many chefs are supertasters, yet a non-taster chef may innovate more boldly and better match the broader customer experience.
- •Non-taster defined as fewer taste buds (lower intensity, not “no taste”)
- •Many chefs are supertasters, but not universally
- •Non-taster perspective can align with the majority’s palate
- •High sensitivity might sometimes limit risk-taking with strong flavors
- 6:37 – 9:01
How taste sensitivity shapes habits, health, and risk (smoking, drinking, diet)
Rachel connects taste intensity to real-life outcomes: barriers to smoking/drinking, dietary avoidance of bitter greens, and potential health consequences. She emphasizes awareness and substitution strategies to protect health.
- •Lower likelihood of heavy smoking/drinking among supertasters due to “burn” barrier
- •Avoidance of bitter greens can reduce antioxidant intake
- •Possible associations with colon cancer risk and hypertension via diet patterns
- •Practical strategy: deliberate substitution (e.g., other antioxidant-rich foods)
- 9:01 – 10:46
Taste vs. smell—and why fish can be unbearable to some
Adam describes fleeing the house when fish is cooked, prompting Rachel to explain intensity differences in olfaction. Genetic receptor copy number can make specific compounds (like fishy trimethylamine) overwhelmingly strong for some people.
- •Taste and smell are intertwined but separable contributors to flavor
- •Olfactory intensity can turn even liked smells unpleasant at high strength
- •Trimethylamine identified as a key “fishy smell” compound
- •Receptor copy number helps explain person-to-person differences
- 10:46 – 12:09
Context effects: why the same smell can flip from loved to hated
Rachel introduces her favorite topic—context—showing how interpretation changes perception, especially for invisible stimuli like odor. Visual cues and meaning can cause the identical scent to be judged as pleasant in one moment and disgusting in another.
- •Perception depends on meaning and surrounding context, not just chemistry
- •Smells are “invisible,” so visual information strongly guides interpretation
- •Rachel describes an experiment where identical scents were rated oppositely
- •Environment and associations can override raw sensory input
- 12:09 – 14:14
When bad-smelling foods taste great: stinky tofu, durian, coffee, and flavor chemistry
Adam struggles with the idea that something can smell awful yet taste good. Rachel explains that biting releases different volatile compounds than sniffing alone, so aroma and in-mouth flavor can diverge dramatically.
- •Examples: stinky tofu and durian (pungent odor, different eaten flavor)
- •Opposite example: coffee smells good but tastes bitter to many
- •Chewing releases new volatiles, reshaping the flavor profile
- •Overall flavor experience isn’t simply the sum of smell + taste parts
- 14:14 – 18:02
Why people undervalue smell—and what COVID revealed about its importance
Rachel recounts her COVID-era study comparing the value of smell to commodities like cellphones and hair, plus legal/medical compensation norms. The results show smell is consistently underappreciated, even after widespread COVID-related smell loss.
- •Study: many students would give up smell before cellphone or even hair
- •AMA compensation norms value smell at ~1–5% vs. vision at ~85%
- •Cross-cultural replication yields similar undervaluation patterns
- •COVID smell loss made many people newly aware of smell’s role
- 18:02 – 20:35
Smell, identity, and mental health: why losing smell can be life-altering
Rachel argues that smell loss can devastate emotional life, sense of self, and social intimacy—sometimes contributing to depression. She links this to overlapping brain systems for odor perception, emotion, learning, and even spatial cognition.
- •Case for vastly higher compensation due to quality-of-life impact
- •Olfaction shares neural pathways with emotion and memory systems
- •Loss of smell can disrupt intimacy, self-perception, and social connection
- •Links to cognition/spatial orientation and mental acuity are discussed
- 20:35 – 22:58
Romance and body odor: attraction, aversion, and intimacy barriers
Adam asks about Rachel’s “smell enthusiast” identity and dating, leading to a discussion of partner odor as a critical compatibility factor. Rachel describes how dislike of a partner’s smell can erode intimacy and even end relationships.
- •Liking a partner’s smell may not start love, but can enable it
- •Disliking partner odor is a common complaint in relationship counseling
- •Examples of instant attraction/repulsion based on scent
- •Smell as a direct gatekeeper for physical closeness
- 22:58 – 26:32
Can you smell disease? Unique noses, diagnostic odors, and sensitivity differences
The conversation turns to “super smellers,” sparked by Allison detecting a child’s ear infection and reports of smelling Parkinson’s. Rachel explains individual receptor differences and how baseline familiarity helps people notice subtle odor changes tied to illness.
- •Each person has unique body odor; each nose has unique receptor patterns
- •Higher receptor copy numbers can increase detection of specific compounds
- •Historical use of doctors’ noses for diagnosing illness
- •Baseline familiarity makes “something different” detectable even unconsciously
- 26:32 – 31:50
Lightning round: plate color, attention, dream guest, and awkward body-odor advice
In rapid-fire Q&A, Rachel shares a favorite finding: visual context (like plate color) can change perceived sweetness and even reduce mindless snacking. They also cover a dream dinner guest, how to address body odor, and a playful wrap-up about guest selection and smell rituals.
- •White vs. black/red/blue plates can shift sweetness/saltiness perception
- •Red plates can increase attention and reduce mindless eating
- •Julia Child as Rachel’s dream dinner guest
- •Body odor can reflect hygiene or medical issues; tact depends on cause
- •Rachel’s perfume ritual illustrates scent’s role in mindset and memory
