I want to know precisely what the deal with lactose intolerance is. After searching the googles, I decided that I could not find a suitable answer to the question of the deal with lactose intolerance.
I have thought about it long and hard, and have come up with several possible answers to the deal with lactose intolerance.
They are as follows:
1. The Counter-Freudian Perspective
Purely by coincidence, human breastmilk has similar properties to bovine breastmilk. By this connection, people who enjoyed sucking on their mother's teats enjoy and tolerate milk and other lactose products, by logic opposite that of Sigmund Schlomo Freud's. By contrast, those who did not enjoy sucking on their mother's teats (Mostly Asians.*see works cited*
Its probably because the average asian woman has teats too small for an infant to properly enjoy) are lactose intolerant, because it is only logical, considering the low danger of submission to gravity of small breasts. On an unrelated note, they sag less in old age.
And that is one possible proposition to the answer to the deal with lactose intolerance.
2. Biological Psychological Standpoint
As it happens, BPS, which happens to be the acronym for Broken Penis Syndrome (which is believed to be related to lactose intolerance by some because of the complex mathematical equations which make the worlds penii function), is only a hypothesis, though a logical one.
As infants, lactose intolerant people were fed too much lactose-based milk products. Yogurts, ice cream, milk, and cheese became so large a part of their diets that the children began to have severe indigestion. Their body learned to associate lactose-based products with indigestion, and so their bodies began to think that the appropriate response to any amount of lactose would be similar indigestion. While this is entirely possible, I favor my final postulate.
3. The Pythagorean Theorem
Lactose intolerants are bad at all kinds of math, specifically that of the geometric nature. Ineptitude in the maths is not a disease of the mind, however, it is a disease of the body. Math ability depends directly on the ratio between one's liver, stomach, and large intestine. People who's liver, stomach, and large intestines form a perfect right triangle when the mass of each is applied to one of the three sides of a moldable generic ball of play dough happen to have precisely the ingrained ability to succeed in the maths. This is not a precise science, however, it does not work like an on-off switch: mathematical talent is measured by the proximity in which the ratio approximates a true right triangle. As the large intestine, liver, and stomach each have a constantly changing mass, a person's ability to understand the maths fluctuates as well. This is the reason for which table waiters are more adept at arithmatic when they are off the job and capable of eating at their leisure (hunger is nature's way of restoring balance) than when they are working, surrounded by food but unable to eat any of it, despite natural needs. Next time you eat at a restaurant, offer your waiter a choice of pretzels and crackers, and he will correctly add up your bill, so you no longer have to carry a pocket-sized graphing calculator.
Either way, cows have a similar math-to-organ balance, and it is for this reason that people who are bad at math are lactose intolerant. They are often just plain intolerant as well, but that is a different issue entirely.
Facts about Lactose Intolerance:
I referenced this site only because I wanted to be accurate in saying that 90% of Asian-Americans are lactose intolerant, while only 15% of white people are. This conflicts with my third and most likely postulate, however, this is irrelevant. As it happens, an Asian-American man was hired to do the math when determining the percentages, and I am certain that with the high likely hood he was lactose intolerant, his lactose intolerance made him get something wrong in the equations, which would mean that a significantly smaller portion of Asians were lactose intolerant than his numbers let on. This decreases the likelihood that he was lactose intolerant, and increases the likelihood that he was right, which in turn increases the likelihood that he was lactose intolerant and therefore wrong. And so on, and so forth.