Is it psychological peculiarity in humans to believe that a cleaner cleans better if there are an abundance of suds?

Lathering up in a shower. People relate to that.

It is only when washing dishes that suds discipline enters my head. It was drummed into me in my youth. That and intolerance for those who want to wash dishes in tepid or cold water. It is a great handicap in that those familiar with my fetish can mount it against me when it’s their turn to do the dishes, knowing that I will push them away from the sink. Polite forbearance is out of place when its about being stingy with dishwashing liquid or hot water.

Um, it generally does mean that. The more suds the stronger the surfactant… if lowering of the surface tension of water is the cleaning mechanism. Other cleaners like Windex use a different mechanism.

^^ Polite forbearance is out of place when its about being stingy with dishwashing liquid or hot water.
Have you ever, as an experiment, tried doing the dishes with the min amount of dish soap and warm water to see if they di not get clean as much as hot with extra dish soap?

@Hypocrisy_Central Nope, and there have undoubtedly been major improvements in soap technology in the many decades since my youth. I can’t explain this particular fixation or why it vexes me. I endure the ridicule of my male friends for my “sissy” hangup, but their wives and or girlfriends are usually solidly admiring at my tolerance for steaming water, and the spotless results.

Sort of seems that way, doesn’t it?

Blame it on excellent marketing. It’s hard to realistically demonstrate how well a cleaner performs.

It’s much easier to ‘sell’ the suds, color, and scent. If those three attributes are satisfactory to the consumer, they’re likely to continue purchasing that product.

I’m an ex-ad guy and I assure you that @bossob is exactly right. The funny thing is, low suds are the rage now, at least for washing machines.

We have been conditioned to think that. People like bubbles. We used to sell an expensive shampoo at my store and we always explained it won’t be sudsy.

@bossob It’s much easier to ‘sell’ the suds, color, and scent. If those three attributes are satisfactory to the consumer, they’re likely to continue purchasing that product.
Basically, show them it suds, leaves a nice, fresh smell, and so long as it is not horrible at taking away the dirt and grime, but far from great, people are happy?

I think that at least equally or in greater measure, people think that the more perfumey something is, the better a job it does of cleaning.

Witness the entire Febreeze nonsense. It doesn’t clean carpets or anything else. It just masks everything with a strong obnoxious perfume and everybody thinks it’s magically cleaned. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I have asthma and allergies with perfume type scents being one of the chief triggers.

Ordinary things like vinegar and bleach and baking soda do a far better job than 90% of the overpriced and overhyped stuff clogging up the store shelves. And a whole lot less expensive.

But people want a strong perfume scent left behind to convince themselves that it’s REALLY REALLY clean.

Baking soda has no smell but does a fantastic job where a scrubbing or deodorizing compound is needed. Bleach actually kills E-Coli and other pathogens. But it’s smell, as well as that of vinegar, evaporates almost completely in a relatively short time so there’s little to no olfactory “proof” that something has been adequately cleaned.

But throw in some strong perfume for “proof” and people are ecstatic and fork over the money for their grossly inflated prices gladly; gullible fools.