The short answer:

Creamy.

The long answer:

I usually try not to get into long-winded debates. I don’t like arguments, and I’ve found that it is basically impossible to change anyone’s opinion on anything. Luckily, I have no opinions on any subject of any importance, so it is pretty easy for me to avoid a debate with a well-timed shrug. But for some reason, when there is a nonsensical topic up for debate, I am compelled to be as argumentative as possible. Maybe I just need an outlet.

The other day, I got into a bitter debate about whether crunchy or creamy peanut butter is better—a bitter better butter debate. I feel that I am somewhat of a peanut butter connoisseur (let me know if you know anyone else who puts peanut butter on waffles), so this was one place where I felt I could hold my own. Like any sane person, I know that creamy peanut butter is far better for a number of reasons.

First, it is easier to eat than crunchy peanut butter. Food is meant to be eaten and enjoyed, and the added crunchiness in some peanut butter only hinders this process. You might then argue that I should prefer all my foods to come in liquid form, which is sort of disgusting. But while I do not deny that texture is an important part of how food tastes, crunchiness is far more important in, say, potato chips than it is in peanut butter. For one thing, the very stickiness of peanut butter means that it is inherently harder to chew even when smooth, and the crunchiness only compounds this fact. For another thing, peanut butter is not really a food by itself. Though some people eat peanut butter straight up, it is really a spread or condiment, meant to complement other things. There is a reason that other spreads and condiments are not crunchy, which is that they are not meant to stand out on their own. (Perhaps if you eat peanut butter by itself, you have an excuse to prefer it crunchy, but really, you should just be eating peanuts instead.) Also, potato chips are better crunchy because their main purpose is to be a crunchy potato snack. On the other hand, removing the crunchiness from peanut butter does not affect its ultimate telos, which is to be a spreadable form of peanuts.

This brings us to a second point, which is that crunchy peanut butter is also less spreadable than creamy peanut butter. As a result, it is harder to spread an even distribution. This is especially worrisome, since by its very nature as a butter or spread, it must be spreadable. Some people would say that the primary purpose of peanut butter is to taste like peanuts, and therefore having a similar texture to peanuts is more important than spreadability. Perhaps this is just a difference of opinion. But there is nothing stopping anyone from adding more peanuts to creamy or even crunchy peanut butter to make it more peanut-like in texture, and yet you never see anyone doing so. I would argue that this means that most people do not care very much about capturing the crunchiness of peanuts in their peanut butter, and that ultimately the smoothness is what carries most of the appeal.

Of course, our debate ended as all arguments do, in a draw, with neither side convincing the other. Afterwards, I began to think about whether a person’s views on peanut butter indicate anything about his or her personality. Perhaps I prefer my life like I prefer my peanut butter, smooth. Just as I try to avoid chewing crunchy peanut butter or getting into arguments, I try to avoid all bumps in the road of life. But is this a good thing? Some people say that it is by facing adversity head-on that we really grow. Would it behoove me to take a Skippy on the crunchy side of the street for once? Maybe I’d find out in a Jif what I’ve been missing out on. Perhaps I’ve been living with Peter Pan for too long, and I need to take another step in growing up.

Or perhaps I’ve just been stuck thinking about peanut butter for too long.

Cheers,
-qm