A question which has perplexed great minds since forever when given two objects to eat is what to eat first? Many a times in life one is given two perfectly acceptable and palatable eatables, one of which one likes more than other. Such situation can occur in choosing a food item in party, in taking a lunch in office, or in being forced to eat by parents. One would have to eat both, but one would have a clear priority and order of preference for each.
Eating what you like first is advantageous in that you eat when you are most hungry, thereby enjoy your favourite item best. You also avoid agony of waiting and not eating your favourite dish. In some cases, specially when mischievous siblings/friends are around, you also avoid the possibility of your dish being confiscated or robbed from you by said sibling. You would typically also avoid chance of time crunch necessitating less than comfortable way of enjoying. Disadvantage of this plan is that you will eat other stuff after your favourite stuff, thus washing away all the good taste in mouth.
Eating what you like last is advantageous in that you may have more time to savour it without queue of rest of the dishes waiting to be finished. You also end meal with long lasting favorable after taste, assuming you don’t rinse your mouth too much, thus increasing pleasure period. In some ironic way, knowing that your best dish awaits your may also provides pleasure of anticipation and hence more pleasure from eating. Disadvantage of this move are possible time crunch, confiscation, reduced hunger and subsequent reduced pleasure at later stage of eating meal, or agony of waiting if anticipation doesn’t please you.
I’ve been following second option so far, but now when I listed them both here, I am thinking that I may have to reconsider my life’s fundamental strategy.