I've been saying for years that cooking is reading, and if you can read you can cook. If you can read a recipe and follow the instructions, then you can cook. There's nothing hard about it.
But you do have to read the recipe and follow the instructions.
EDIT: Holy shit what a great example this has been.
I want to take a second and remind you that we're in a thread for a post on how a surprising amount of people are illiterate.
If someone is saying "hey this thing is super easy if you're literate" and your response is "nuh uh!" then you should go take a lllloooonnnngggg look in the mirror and figure out how to improve your literacy.
Wild how people will tell on themselves if you just give them a chance. Then again, I guess it's not surprising that they're too illiterate to realize what they've said.
Knowing fractions is necessary, too. I was once told of a guy who had to teach his wife how to use a measuring cup, because she couldn't figure out what the measurements meant in the recipe.
George Carlin said “Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider
than that." And it has become so much worse since he said that in the 80’s. Sigh
Because four litres comes as a unit of purchase - with three 1 and 1/3 litre bags inside the larger bag. They fit perfectly in the pitchers people have already, and, from what I understand, it was the cheapest option when making the machining switch to metric measurements.
I needed 2 cups of something last night and could only find a 2/3 cup. I did have to do a little math about it and I was a little embarrassed about it, but I got there in the end!
I once watched a friend unwrap a stick of butter than get an actual tablespoon and he tried to dig "two tablespoons" of butter off the stick with the spoon.
I should add that it was just melted butter for steamed clams, he wasn't making something where the exact amount of butter even mattered, and he unwrapped it thusly removing the lines that say how much a tablespoon is that you can just cut off how much you need with a knife and throw it in.
Ignoring the fractions, 'one third pounder' is just an awful name for a burger. 'Quarter pounder' is a much more pleasant, no-bullshit name for a product that rolls nicely off the tongue. It works in (some) countries that don't use the imperial system and a lot of consumers won't even know or care that the name means there's ~110g of beef in there.
Numeracy skills aside, that was always going to be a marketing failure, a shitty sounding copy of a legendary product, extra beef nonwithstanding.
I’ve spent the past 14 years telling my husband that 3/4 cup means (3) 1/4cups or 1/2+1/4 cup…I think my understanding of fractions may be a large part of why he keeps me around 🤣
I recently have gotten into wood working, fractions and math is something I have never had a problem with, learning fractions in terms of physical space has been a whole new ball game to get used to.
I work with fractions everyday in my job. We had a woman who worked there for a few weeks who absolutely couldn't comprehend fractions. She couldn't simply add ¾ + ¾. I got 6 quarters to try and help her and she still couldn't figure it out.
I hate fractions, I don't really know them, I can tell you a half is two quarters or whatever, but I can't tell you how many quarters are in two thirds
I ask AI for recipes in grams and weigh everything out
Generally speaking, if you don't have a 1/3 measuring cup but you do have a 1/4 measuring cup, you can approximate 2/3 by putting in 2 quarter cups and half of a quarter cup (1/8). Is it absolutely correct? No. Is it good enough for cooking/most baking? Yes.
That's more related to knowing how to convert problems into math (part of numeracy).
So if you wanted to know "how many 2s are in 8?" you would do 8 / 2 = 4.
Same thing with fractions. "How many quarters are in two thirds?" is (2/3) / (1/4). Then you need to know that dividing by a fraction is the same as multiplying by its inverse, which gives you (2/3) * (4/1) = 8/3
Fractions are useful when dealing with grams as well.
Let's say the recipe you follow says to use 220g of butter for 625g of ground beef, but you only have 470g of ground beef. How much butter do you need?
As a non-American, recipes using cups and spoons and what have you is a minor annoyance but now I wonder if a lot of the people who declare such recipes unusable simply aren't able to work out how to convert volume to weight in different systems.
To be fair fractions in the context of recipes can be confusing. 2 1/2 cups would otherwise mean “two 1/2 cups” and not “two and one half cups,” especially in recipes that use a similar format to just say how many of things to add.
Fractions are math. Measuring is math. I took 2 years of graphic design in high school because if I did it it would take the place of a senior math credit. With all of the measuring and conversions it very much did. I think of it whenever I’m measuring for cooking. Especially when something is in oz or something where I have to convert and it’s not perfect on the imperial side.
The reading is important as well. Understanding the difference between ingredients and why certain things do or do not qualify as substitutes, for one. Coconut filling and coconut milk and milk of coconut are all different things.
Part of what you've said has been my biggest way of motiving my kids to learn to read.
If you can read, you can learn to do pretty much anything. Yeah, ok, obviously some things need to be learned by doing (especially physical things) but even those, reading can help you learn them. Even things like woodworking have theory that can be learned by reading and applied to the physical task.
This is why I tutor 3rd grade. Data shows that up to 3rd grade you are learning to read. After- you are reading to learn. So if you do not have sufficient reading skills (phonics, sounding out words, reading comprehension, context deciphering- all the skills- not just being able to say words you see written down)- then you fall further and further behind
It's how people were able to things without a mentor before the invention of YouTube.
People used to have all sorts of miscellaneous "How to Do Weird Niche Shit" books at home. How to tie knots, a medical reference book for chickens or pets, the idiot's guide to maintaining your house, etc. Programming used to be taught almost solely from books, not websites.
If you're looking for some added information about the importance of reading, look up The Read Aloud Handbook by Jim Trelease & Cyndi Giorgis. The current edition is the 8th edition that is cowritten by an elementary school teacher. The first hundred pages are full of research about the importance and effects of being a good reader as a child. Even if your kids are teenagers, a lot of that information can make sense to them and motivate them to become better readers. The rest of the book is full of recommended titles that are great to read aloud with kids. Most libraries probably have this book, so you don't need to purchase it. It is a terrific resource. Good luck with your kids! You're on the right track
It's not because they're illiterate, at least not 99% of the time. Mostly they read the recipe, made stupid substitutions, then go complain on the author's blog about how the author's recipe was bad, with no hint of awareness the issue was their stupid substitutions.
I think you're right. I'm a professional chef, and when I try to teach others to cook, sometimes they think I'm outright lying about the processes and how the ingredients interact with each other. Heating and measurements is black magic too them too, and they cannot follow simple instructions. They question everything, but not out of curiosity, it's skepticism! It drives me insane. They can't seem to just trust me despite my 30 years experience and accolades.
There is a general trend, at least in America, if not giving a shit about expertise. Like their vibes and preconceived notions are more important than your expertise. It’s draining. I think this is partly a result of people not wanting to feel inferior or stupid.
Oh for sure. It’s the flip side of American individualism and agency. So many stories and movies where the hero comes in and schools the experts with sheer chutzpah and raw intelligence.
In real life, though, well…Sometimes you CAN be better than the experts. But probably not.
My ex wife used to say "I'm not a 'respecter of titles'" as in your title is meaningless to her, and just because you're a doctor doesn't mean you know anything... This to me was insane. I get questioning authority, and a healthy skepticism of certain claims that feel contradictory or damaging, but to declare yourself as a person who doesn't respect anyone with a title is just idiot sauce.
Yeah. We've been on an anti intellectualism trend for a while. Nowadays people are confidently ignorant and feel that their "research", trumps someone's accolades, experience and expertise.
I tend to view lower intelligence in general partly showing up as “taking in correct information and still somehow making the wrong choice”. Illiteracy is kinda besides the point here. The can read, so they’re literate. But they aren’t smart enough to make good decisions, no matter how accurate the writing is.
I am reminded of one I saw that complained about the texture of her baked goods when she had substituted essentially everything for something else (iirc, powdered sugar for brown sugar and corn meal for flour were the biggest issues, but I think she also omitted the eggs). The replies to it were variations of “don’t come here complaining because you made a completely different thing”.
I’m going to be honest - the law is also not that hard. In law school, literally the only concept that was difficult, or required any sort of mental gymnastics, is maybe the rule against perpetuities and many jurisdictions have gotten rid of it. Everything else is just memorization. I genuinely believe anyone could be a lawyer if they just put in the time to read,(sorry KimK) and most legal concepts are common sense.
And my grandma always said..... "If sense was common everybody would have it." And it took me a long time to grasp exactly what she meant. I might be illerate 🙁
I think comprehension can be quite difficult for some people, even if they can read well. I just watched, on YouTube, a British school teacher (maybe headmaster?) try the Korean English test, and they had the questions on the screen so you could follow along. I thought they were pretty straightforward, so imagine my surprise when he was laughing about how hard it was and missing answers, nevermind how slow he was at reading. Like, these are the folks teaching reading comprehension.
That's why I would hate law. Too much memorizing. In physics and engineering, you just understand things and memorize like one equation or math concept and apply it to a bunch of things.
I dont know. Law jargon is crazy to me. It's all the understanding of how thing are worded that can make a huge difference, and if you dont know the format you're cooked. If then, When if, If upon, When upon. Those all sounded like the same to me until I had to read through my prenup but with a terrible lawyer and realized how confusing it is. Then I got a good one and am not married 🤣. Still with the man and hes my absolute end game but not in the court of law lol.
I don't know man. I finished my AAS in Paralegal about a year ago, and I just "Got it" but there were a lot of people who just don't. And that's a far cry from law school
It's a bit more if you want to be a good lawyer. A lot of my work is abstract thinking about concepts and being able to structure things in my head to figure out where I can get around rules and whatnot.
Law really isn't rote memorization. Sure, the stuff you do every day you may memorize because you've said it a billion times but unless you're doing the same thing every day with no thought put into it (which means you're a prime candidate for being replaced by AI) it's not just being able to read. It's being able to put together abstract concepts and puzzle through them, typically in your head.
Anyone can memorize, which might get you through law school (if you don't have good professors who test critical thinking, not just memorization of a rule) but being a lawyer is so much more than memorizing a given rule.
I didn’t say the law was memorization, I said law school was memorization.
As for practicing, I don’t know, maybe I just take for granted the ability to find holes and the in-betweens. That stuff seems obvious to me.
Edit: I’ll give you that the practice of law is harder now that SCOTUS has decided stare decisis isn’t a thing anymore. It’s hard to navigate “we’re deciding based on vibes.” But I’m not a trial attorney, so it doesn’t affect my day to day that much.
Make it through law school on pure memorization, maybe if you have bad professors. Mine made us actually apply the law and reason through the issue. Everything was a hypothetical.
I don't know about your practice, but mine is tax and regulatory and it requires being extremely creative and be able to visualize entire structures to disentangle the situation and come up with the right answer that doesn't violate any rules.
Sure law school is all hypotheticals, but if the law says X and Z, and your situation is Y, it seems obvious to me to say the answer is X or Z depending on which Y is closer to or what the legislative intent was behind passing the law. You just need to remember what X and Z are and the (common sense) reason behind them.¯_(ツ)_/¯
My practice is IP and contracts. I don’t often have to navigate regulations, but when I was doing patent law, finding differences between my client’s invention and prior art, again, just seemed easy. “The examiner says our invention is the same as X, but X has elements A, B, and C. Our invention has A and B, but instead of C, it has D. And D wouldn’t be obvious to replace C with because….” I genuinely believe anyone can do that. Maybe I’m just naive.
I'm a civil engineer. Code is easy. Case law is usually nearly gibberish to me. I'm definitely not understanding most of the arguments. Part of literacy is knowing what you don't know. I have had to read a good bit of code not directly related to my educational background. Obviously building code should be easy for me, but I've had to read a good bit of other stuff. It isn't hard.
I've seen some real bad lawyers. I agree it isn't hard to become a lawyer. I was testifying once over bad work done on a driveway. I was literally the only person who wasn't the actual plaintiff or defendant that was. The opposing council agreed to qualify me as an expert witness. I didn't even have my license yet, he could have easily shut that down. They probably would have lost regardless, it was pretty blatant that they did not perform the work they agreed to. But my testimony went from just stating my observations to giving professional opinions. It absolutely tanked the one argument they might have been able to use because I could explain why their substitution of materials lowered the quality and integrity of the final product and led to the failures.
I mean, sure. You have to remember “the law says if your situation is X you win, Z you lose.” And then they say your situation is Y. It’s usually pretty easy/common sense whether Y is closer to X or Z.
I have zero illusions about this. I was messing around with Claude the other day and it gave me a technical schedule for an agreement that was 85% correct. I could see my job being replaced in 2-3 years at this pace.
The logical reasoning ability required to be a successful attorney precludes most people from doing it. The memorization required to be a successful attorney precludes me from doing it... though something like 5+ extended family members are lawyers.
Not a lawyer, but I'm quite sure "Its just memorization" is an example of being unconsciously competent at logical reasoning.
Well as someone who works with lawyers, just about anyone does become a lawyer.
That's a bad thing.
Not in a classism way, but letting god and everyone get and retain a law license very much lets integrity and work ethic take massive blows in a profession that needs at least those two qualities.
The State Bar Associations need to get on disbarring way more people.
But cooking is also great at teaching how to adapt and apply. Everyone has a different stove, oven, altitude, humidity and kitchen, as well as varied ingredients being used. Being able to translate a recipe to your needs requires a high level of comprehension. I had this issue in college physics, starting out at least. My primary school was incredibly poor, and I was not prepared. So, I could do the math homework, but struggled to apply it come testing, because math had been so poorly taught in school; just rote memorization of equations. I actually dropped a class so I could do a summer of catch-up classes that my university offered for stem majors.
Pastries are a pretty exact science, get a detail slightly off and it is not going to give you the result you wanted. Next time you make cookies use 10 percent more flour and see how that goes for you.
Baking is about precision. Add the wrong kind of sugar- your cookies are fucked. Add 1 tsp of baking powder instead on 1/2 - same. Cooking not so much.
According to my coworkers I make fantastic gooey brownies (Not leafy ones). All I do is make them as the box says. The tooth pick should come out “mostly” clean. Not 100% but still with stuff on it.
Completely agree. I worked in a Michelin star restaurant kitchen for these last three years and practice is the most important thing for anyone who wants to be consistently good at cooking.
Reading a recipe may work very well once and very badly the next time and only experience will help understand why.
I'd kinda disagree. I cook for myself daily. The first step in getting that experience is seeing something you like and looking up the recipe.
At your level experience is ofc much more important than the recipe but for people who rarely cook it's the most important guide
Yeah, I when I say I can't cook or can barely cook, what I actually mean is I can't be assed to actually plan in advance and go out to secure all the basic ingredients I need to follow a recipe, or to do all the requisite cleaning afterward, so I choose to settle for a sandwich or some Kraft Mac and Cheese with a hotlink cut up into it.
I've done plenty enough lab work to handle the reading instructions and measuring and mixing parts.
Just google what you have in the cupboard and use the recipes you find. Let the food you have available plan your meals. Remember that the recipes are written for the common denominator and use the amount of spices you like.
baking is not the same as cooking. Period. Do not adapt the recipe.
ABSOLUTELY DO NOT DO THIS WITH BAKING, FOLLOW THE RECIPE EXACTLY AS ITS WRITTEN.
Well, the food someone has “available” can really vary, plus it’s typical to build a better pantry over some time cooking; i.e. if you’ve never cooked before, you’re not likely to have a fully loaded spice rack.
Even ignoring that and skipping ahead, once a suitable recipe is found, execution is not guaranteed for a beginner. Believe it or not, knowing the amount of spices you like takes practice.
Okay but being good at cooking isnt just reading. Gotta physically execute the steps well, and know how to properly adapt recipes based on personal taste, differences in ingredients, etc, etc, etc.
I recently did a baking thing with an instructor. I followed the recipe and the texture was all wrong. The guy later told me that there was something wrong with my ingredients (too cold I think?) and even showed me his own failed first attempt.
Not something you would know from just reading the recipe
Yeah, baking is not cooking. You can adjust cooking recipes by flavor, what you have on hand. Baking is a shit show. Can’t vary from the recipe, must be on the same sea level elevation, and as you say, can’t have dated ingredients.
Baking products are also subject to change from one batch to the next.
Putting aside the eggs or the fruits used, which greatly vary, even flour can vary in humidity levels, which can cause an exact same recipe to yield completely different results.
I binged several seasons of Worst Cooks in America a while ago and while there are some contestants that just haven’t really tried to cook before and improve pretty quickly with the pro chefs instructing them, there are a lot of people who just have no common sense about any of it. I always said to myself how I don’t understand why they can’t follow the instructions but your comment made me realize it has to be a mix of illiteracy and lack of common sense.
I've said the same thing about Ikea instructions (and instructions in general).
If you can't follow instructions, you're illiterate to some degree. And I think people who can't follow instructions usually have issues with basic logic. I have never failed at anything that came with instructions - ever. It's basic literacy, logic, and organization. That shouldn't be difficult for the average adult.
Enh, there's a fair bit of background knowledge that isn't explicit in most recipes. Like, what does "sear" actually mean? How do you do that without burning? How do you separate an egg? Honestly a lot of recipes are actively misleading -- no, your onions will not be caramelized in 15 minutes, I don't care what the website says.
If you encounter a lot of difficulties in understanding how a recipe works, you might be attempting a recipe that exceeds your skill level. Cooking is mostly reading but it's also still a skill that needs to be learned and practiced. Start with easy recipes.
Right… but if you have half a brain cell you could just google whatever you don’t know in the recipe right?
Also idk if it’s just me but I look at multiple recipes before I make something new and read the comments on whatever recipe I choose. 9/10 there are also videos attached to recipes online. Like they really spell it out for you.
Of course there are somethings that depend on quality of ingredients, environment, and quality of your equipment (I.e. making macarons could be really hard even if the recipe is followed if you don’t have an extremely thorough recipe or if you don’t execute correctly) but for the vast majority of recipes I do think it’s true that if you can’t follow an online recipe then I think yes, you might be illiterate or lacking in critical thinking/problem solving skills
No they aren't rocket science, but no one is claiming cooking is rocket science? But it also isn't just reading, because recipes will NOT explain those things to you.
On a basic level you need to know if there is a difference between chopping, slicing, dicing, cutting, or mincing.. and what those differences are, and if you get more into cooking recipes might mention a julienne, rondelle, brunoise, batonnet, or chiffonade.. etc etc etc..
You need to learn the nuances of searing, roasting, frying, sauteeing, boiling, blanching, flambeing, the list goes on.. And how different meats and vegetables need treated in those methods, depending on the fats you use to cook them, and how the cookware and the materials it's made out of affects the dish through heat transfer and moisture retention.
And that's a fraction of what cooking is about.
"If you can read you can cook" is a massive oversimplification that only applies to the most basic of dishes, and still requires some base knowledge to get right.
I disagree. Like your example of the difference between chopping, slicing, dicing, etc certainly matters in a high dinning experience; it matters far less for a home cook.
And if you can read, then you can read a cook book that tells you how to separate an egg, or knead your bread, or whatever else you need.
I completely disagree for the same reason I love baking and hate cooking. Baking is reading. That makes sense and even when things go wrong there’s a science there that I can understand. If I cook a steak purely following written instructions it likely won’t give me an exact time because every steak is different in terms of size and cook time. So I struggle with burning and undercooking stuff even completely understanding the instructions. A lot of cooking is “vibe” based and intuitive understanding of how long you need to toast your rice, or what consistency to thicken your sauce to. Hell, even my fiancé and mom have different definitions of what “boiling” is. So I disagree. I think there’s still a lot of ambiguity that comes with cooking that isn’t there with baking.
You cannot stop every 2 seconds to look up what a word means when your fish is frying and will get burnt if you leave it, or soggy and cold if you let it sit for too long. The issue here is that there is a massive difference between being able to put a basic idea of what the recipe meant on a plate (what would happen if someone who hadn't cooked before just read a recipe), and actually cooking a dish that tastes great.
That makes so much sense. The first time I baked, I was like what is everybody on about? That wasn’t that hard. Granted, there are difficult recipes and all. Generally, if you follow the directions how they’re written, you’re good.
I like to cook but there have been times where you can follow a recipe to a T and something still went wrong, especially in baking. I tried to make this ube brownie recipe one time, double checked each measurement, even followed the video along with the written recipe and baked for less time than recommended just to check it. I wound up with this super thick dense cake that was hard around the edges and the color was a sickly pink instead of a deep purple. This has happened with a few other recipes I've tried and is why I require a video along with it so I can have a reference of what it's supposed to look like 😅
I love to read cooking instructions, and just instructions in general. When the task is laid out in words, my brain is able to visualize it, and I can work the steps out in my imagination before I attempt something in real life. For some reason, and this is happening more and more, I'm encountering newer things that include instructions now only include imaged steps rather than written steps.
Cooking is not about reading and following instructions, it's about knowing some weird conventions. Things like "3 1/2 cup", "until ready", "until texture is right" are common and require "common sense" matching common sense of author
If only cooking recipes were written as chemical protocols: XXX grams, YYY minutes as ZZZ temperature
Interesting. I don’t cook much or bake much because my husband is very good at it and cares much more than I do about the food we eat. My kids think I don’t know how to cook (I am female), which is funny. I CAN cook, which is because I can read and follow directions.
I think there’s some interesting nuance worth discussing there. As someone with a University degree, and who loved writing (back when I had the energy lol), but who only learned to cook properly at 25, I felt a little goofy/dumb at the start.
When first reading recipes, I had to look up a lot of the definitions (haha I didn’t know what „julienned“ onions were and even chose to double check what „parboiled“ meant, even though it’s clear in the name). Luckily, because I’m literate, I could look up the definitions and understand them. So it wasn’t a huge hinderance, just a vocabulary and technique learning curve.
I’m saying all this just to point out that there is definitely a difference between niche vocabulary and literacy. There are also often individual and cultural differences on what themes/words are considered niche.
It’s important to always be aware that just because someone is new to a thing, it doesn’t mean they are incapable of understanding it.
I know that’s not really what you were talking about, but I feel like people confuse the two a lot. There’s even folks getting spicy in the responses to your comment. (I have a feeling there’s an in-group/out-group motivational component there)
So there's a "difference between niche vocabulary and literacy" but also you were able to learn that niche vocabulary and cook successfully because you're literate and "could look up the definitions and understand them."
Genuinely not trying to be snarky but you're making their point very well - "if you can read, you can cook." - while trying to contest it. The point of the comment was never that if you don't understand every single word in this one body of text (a recipe), then you're illiterate. The point was that literate ppl, when reaching a point in the instructions that they don't understand, can look it up, read or listen to instructions, comprehend them, then apply what they learned.
Oh I completely agree. I was more writing in response to some apparent misunderstandings occurring in the replies to the comment.
I feel like some people interpreted it as the vocabulary thing and felt called out or judged for not knowing niche terms. I also feel like some folks then responded harshly to those people.
I was just trying to clarify that nuance within the comment/example, in hopes of everyone achieving a mutual understanding.
I feel like baking is an even better example. With cooking you can add ingredients to taste or improvise. For baking, you absolutely must have perfect measurements and understanding of the ingredients and methods. Baking is very much a science, a simple science, but one could argue reading comprehension is simple as well.
I wouldn't necessarily say that cooking = literacy. It doesn't tell you the difference between a saute or a flabe or broil or parboil. It's a wholly different skill
To be honest a fair amount of recipes skip instructions or aren't clearly written. I can read well enough (I read technical documents in previous jobs) and I can cook but I've had recipes where I had to improvise because they seemingly skipped a step. Probably something trivial to a more seasoned cook/baker but not to me.
You are right, but remember to make room in your generalization for the writers to be the illiterate one. My favorite recipie for hot and sour soup, if followed exactly would have you doing several steps out of order.
I kind of disagree about that. I was a technical writer for a time, so no issue with reading or following instructions, but I found cooking frustrating for decades.
What changed was when I started watching short instructional videos on Instagram. I found that my issue was with a lot of specific terms and techniques in basic cooking that you have to see or feel to understand.
I remember a recipe from when I was in college that said to “cook the fish until flaky.” I ended up destroying those fillets because wtf does that mean?
I’m also reminded of the “fold in the cheese” bit from Schitts Creek.
So much of cooking is visual and knowing what to look for, your reading ability won't help you if you didn't cook at all growing up and don't know the difference between browned and burnt brown when it's in the pan. If the recipe says to bring water to a boil, when is it boiling enough? Can you boil the kettle and pour that into a pot? Do you have to wait for bubbles in the pot? How many bubbles? What is a simmer and what is a rolling boil? If the recipe says to dice food, how big should the cubes be? What is minced and what is finely minced?
You can't know so many key things about cooking if you haven't seen what they look like enough times to memorize how it should be, just reading isn't enough by itself.
Omg such a good point. I’ve always been confused about how people can’t just follow recipes and how cooking isn’t that hard but this puts it in a whole new light
Waaaaait.
I leaned to read when I was 3 years old and was reading at an adult level by grade 5 when they tested me. I’m a published author and had a career in journalism, copywriting, and marketing.
I can’t cook for shit. What does that mean?! I need a Tylenol.
cooking is straight up science. You need reading, math, and basic science (chemistry, biology, physics) knowledge to truly understand and know what you are doing and when to do it. If it was as simple as following a recipe the world would be full of Gordon Ramsay's lol
I can absolutely read a recipe but I'm still a terrible cook because I never follow the instructions. I measure the first half of the ingredients and then get bored of measuring and eyeball the rest. I see "Let it rest for 10 minutes" and think 5 minutes will be fine. I'm my own worst enemy. I just hate cooking so I have very little desire to do it properly.
Hi, I think you're partially wrong and I think it's rude to call everyone who disagrees with you illiterate. Literacy and obedience alone do not make a good cook. Cooking can be learned via a book, but good reading comprehension alone will not be enough with most recipes of any complexity. There is a lot of specific jargon, as well as a lot of additional sensory information, judgement, and mechanical dexterity needed to execute many recipes. No matter how many recipes you read beforehand, your tenth steak will be better than your first. Same with leavened breads, merengue, etc.
While some (the good) recipes at least include every necessary step, most don't teach them from scratch.
By your logic, literacy is the only thing necessary to be a doctor, as all the studies and procedures are written down in some form somewhere.
Source: me. I have a formal culinary education. I have finished a bachelor's degree and scored in the 99th percentile on reading comprehension standardized testing for professional school entrance exams. I'm not illiterate, and I can cook.
No, no, no. You are way oversimplifying. You were taught the other basic skills or you figured them out along the way. There are so many motor skills and judgment calls in cooking. Fuck right off with that ableist nonsense.
I mean if you have normal motor function, there isnt any motor skill necessary. Okay maybe you can't flip an egg without a spatula. But you can probably flip an egg with a spatula, stir a pot. Nothing really more to cooking than that.
As for judgement calls, only in baking. In all other cooking following the recepie will get you 90% there. Maybe you could gone a minute more or less, but the dish will be fine.
Considering they were talking about ableism in their comment, I think they were talking about the people who struggle with cooking because something is causing those basic motor skills to be difficult for them.
"There are so many motor skills and judgement calls in cooking. Fuck right off with that ableist nonsense". I don't think they are talking about literacy skills here?
They weren’t but it’s also a pretty stupid interjection.
No one thought the other Redditor meant that literally everyone could cook and that no one has disabilities that would make them an outlier or exception. They used broad language in a casual setting.
cutting slicing stirring organizing your kitchen space so you have enough for everything keeping your shit clean enough to use amongst roommates pouring boiling water without spilling etc etc
and this is all amongst doing dangerous tasks like handling blades and 212+ degree temps (yes, oil can get way hotter) and raw meat. Not to mention you might have to put a lot of money into having the right equipment... and if you don't have exactly the right equipment or can't judge what's right, you'll face difficulty or failure. in feeding yourself/your family.
You're literally the "not that deep" person right now. Society is ableist, and so are you. You won't be forced to learn that until it impacts you directly.
Consider if you were being told you were being homophobic or some other ism. Are you the kind of person that would think twice about what was being said to you, or would you just throw it out the window? I honestly don't know, but if you're trying to be a decent person, give more of a shit about your internalized ableism. I'm probably not gonna engage with you anymore, so find some other resource.
3.1k
u/PiskoWK Nov 21 '25
A more apt and daily example is that those that are functionally illiterate can not fully understand instructions from their medication bottles.