Hayden Ngan UID: 904 768 408

To what extent does Lars Eighner effectively contradict conventional wisdom?

We’ve all heard the platitude “one man’s trash is another man’s treasure,” which

usually speaks to the unexpected value of something considered worthless by another. This is

certainly embodied in Lars Eighner’s essay ‘On Dumpster Diving’, which disseminates his

experience with dumpster diving (and to some extent, homelessness), but perhaps not in the

way one would expect: Eighner sees unexpected value not in physical objects, but in the very

act of dumpster diving. This goes against conventional wisdom – ubiquitous beliefs often based

on generalizations and belied by faulty assumptions – which holds that dumpster diving is

shameful, reserved only for the desperate, the unproductive, the substance-abusing: the

unintelligent who could not otherwise survive in a meritocratic society. Eighner effectively

defies the common view by elucidating the unexpected forms of intelligence and cognition

(namely, independent judgment, lateral thinking, and situational awareness) involved in

dumpster diving.

Firstly, Eighner uses sensory perception and common sense to make independent

judgments and questions the reader’s ability to do so, refuting their view of dumpster diving.

He first makes an obvious statement: that dry foods are mostly safe, “if they are free of visible

contaminates and still dry and crisp” (Eighner 15). He then relates an anecdote in which he is

asked, “Do you think these crackers are really safe to eat?” (Eighner 15) – a question readers

have likely posed themselves about questionably-sourced food. By introducing a relatable

perspective – that of his suspicious companion – and answering a seemingly reasonable

question with a logical, self-evident judgment, Eighner causes the reader to wonder why they

“cannot evaluate the condition of the crackers” for themselves (15). He states that determining

1
Hayden Ngan UID: 904 768 408

food edibility requires “no special knowledge” (Eighner 15) – just “the senses and common

sense” (Eighner 14). This casts doubt on the reader’s ability to draw conclusions from sensory

perception and common sense (of which they assume themselves abundant), causing them to

consider the unexpected judgment-making cognition necessary for dumpster diving and defying

the view that dumpster diving is for the unintelligent.

Secondly, Eighner uses lateral thinking and logic to make and defend a counterintuitive

suggestion about dumpster diving, demonstrating the cognition involved in dumpster diving.

Eighner provocatively states that “the best way to go through a Dumpster is to lower yourself

into it,” a suggestion that will seem to readers disgusting and outlandish (21). However,

Eighner justifies his claim with a reasonable premise – that good finds are usually heavier than

rubbish – and a logical inference – that these will tend to “settle at the bottom” (21). This is

supported by an example: his companions extract “much good material” that he cannot by

lowering themselves into dumpsters (Eighner 21). Though his argument may fail to convince a

reader to enter a dumpster, it is nonetheless effective at showing the cognitive reasoning and

lateral thinking necessary to effectively extract material from dumpsters, contradicting

conventional wisdom about dumpster diving.

Lastly, Eighner uses observation and situational awareness to analyze and capitalize on

college students’ wasteful habits, making the reader consider the cognition involved in

dumpster diving. For example, he exploits demographic and temporal trends, noting that

dumpsters from areas “inhabited by many affluent college students” are correspondingly “very

rich,” and that student waste increases “before and after breaks, and around midterm”

(Eighner 16). He also uses contextual information to make logical deductions: an item “found

2
Hayden Ngan UID: 904 768 408

with many others” indicates that some are “obviously perfectly good” (Eighner 16). Eighner

exhibits a keen situational awareness and analytical depth that will likely surprise the reader;

after all, one would think that using strategy to maximize returns is chiefly the concern of

economists, not dumpster divers!

Eighner’s observations lend him an intimate understanding of how college students

think, which he uses to question traditional academic intelligence to convey the cognition

involved in dumpster diving. He expounds and belittles the thought process behind a student’s

wasteful disposal of a half jar of peanut butter. Eighner’s hypothetical student is ignorant of the

fact that “peanut butter… is unlikely to spoil” before he returns from the break (16). Reasoning

that the peanut butter was bought with “Daddy’s money” and not his own, the student decides

(much to Eighner’s delight) to discard the perfectly good jar of food (16). The use of the childish

pronoun “Daddy” patronizes the student by portraying him as a spoiled child, mocking his

financial dependence. Eighner further disparages the student’s ignorance by using the

conjunctive adverb “in fact” with a statement about the edibility of peanut butter over time,

lending him greater authority (16). Additionally, he characterizes student attitudes toward

discards as “carelessness, ignorance, or wastefulness” (Eighner 16); these cumulatively effect a

sense of second-hand embarrassment on the student’s behalf, leading the reader to question

how educated, intelligent college students could be so thoroughly humiliated by a dumpster

diver, of all people. Eighner’s situational awareness and observation allow him to take

advantage of circumstantial trends to optimize his dumpster diving and to criticize the wasteful

habits of college students whom one would expect to be more intelligent than a dumpster

3
Hayden Ngan UID: 904 768 408

diver. This contradicts conventional wisdom about the intelligence (or lack thereof) of dumpster

divers.

Some may argue, however, that Eighner’s argument against conventional wisdom is

weakened by his apparent identity as an exceptional dumpster diver; for one, he seems to

scavenge out of choice rather than necessity or desperation. He scavenged “a year before [he]

became homeless” (Eighner 13) and has (presumably willing) companions who are disgusted by

his “source of… provisions” (Eighner 15); and what can his mention of gaining weight “when…

scavenging” (Eighner 18) mean but that there are times when he is not scavenging?

For another, he appears to be copiously educated, as evidenced by his eloquent writing

and compelling arguments. He casually throws about words from the medical field of lexis such

as “botulism” (Eighner 15), “antihistamines” (Eighner 18), and “antipsychotic” (Eighner 19) – it

is implied he has “some grounding in pharmacology” (Eighner 18). He is also familiar enough

with the college system to know the semester schedule and, apparently, to be horrified by “the

kind of paper that now merits an A” (Eighner 20). Does not his privileged position as an

educated individual invalidate his argument about the unexpected intelligence of dumpster

divers? After all, he is merely demonstrating that a person with the traditional academic

intelligence that dumpster divers lack can also scavenge for a living.

In fact, his apparent position as an individual of traditional intelligence strengthens

rather than weakens his argument. He is clearly intelligent and aware of the stigma and

stereotypes surrounding dumpster diving; yet he deliberately chooses to scavenge. Though he

realizes most dumpster divers are perceived as “drug addicts and winos” (Eighner 19) and

4
Hayden Ngan UID: 904 768 408

require the “public’s tolerance” (Eighner 19), and almost in spite of his apparent intelligence he

sees that “people throw away perfectly good stuff” that is “his for the taking” (Eighner 17).

Logically, there is no reason not to take what has been thrown away; after all, “even

respectable employed people” sometimes find attractive items in dumpsters (Eighner 14). Thus,

Eighner’s possible position as an educated individual of traditional intelligence does not defeat

his argument, but serves as a testimony to the merits of dumpster diving and, more

importantly, to the forms of cognition involved in dumpster diving.

In sum, Eighner makes a convincing argument against conventional wisdom in several

ways: questioning the reader’s ability to use sensory perception and common sense to make

independent judgments, defending a counterintuitive principle of dumpster diving with lateral

thinking and logic, using trends to maximize return, and humiliatingly criticizing the habits of

college students. In so doing, he demonstrates several unexpected forms of cognition involved

in dumpster diving: independent judgment, lateral thinking, and situational awareness, among

others. The possibility of his being an educated (or otherwise privileged) individual serves not to

weaken his argument, as demonstrated above, but to strengthen it by giving testimony to the

merits of dumpster diving from an “intellectual” standpoint respected by readers. Indeed,

Eighner has experienced and explicated practically that one man’s physical trash is another

man’s treasure, but perhaps more profoundly, that what is trash to one man – the base, crude

act of dumpster diving – is in fact a treasure trove of evidence that defies conventional wisdom,

an exhibition of the many unexpected forms of cognition involved in dumpster diving.

5
Hayden Ngan UID: 904 768 408

Works cited
Eighner, Lars. “On Dumpster Diving”. The Norton Reader: An Anthology of Nonfiction. Shorter 14th ed.
Eds. Melissa A. Goldwaite, et al. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2016. 13-22. Print.