Food Snobbery

[g.johnson]

That's not my understanding as far as wine goes, by I may well be wrong.  I thought that taste buds would only get you as far as telling a dry wine from a sweet one, a tannic wine from a soft one, and such like.  But actually distinguishing a dry, tannic French Bordeaux, for example from a dry, tannic Australian Cab/Shiraz requires olfaction - to say nothing of the much finer distinctions which are there to be made.  Two such very different wines, I understand, are not readily distinguishable by taste buds alone.

That's true (also as far as my limited understanding goes). Sure you need olfaction (and memory and a classification system) to distinguish two dry, tannic wines. But the point I was trying to make was that a super-taster might not like any dry, tannic wines because of his physiology. And how can we say that she's wrong.

[Steve Plotnicki]

There are two flawed assumptions in your argument

After you say this you then go onto say the same exact thing I said in my prior post. I said,

Maybe we don't realize it and those are people who predomimently buy bland foods.

I don't see how that is materially different then saying that they avoid the foods that they are sensitive to in restaurants.

But the thrust of my point is that in spite of their condition, super-tasters function normally in a society where normal tasters set the definition of good taste. The main point being that the article really had no bearing on the discussion we've been having.

[g.johnson]

After you say this you then go onto say the same exact thing I said in my prior post. I said,

Maybe we don't realize it and those are people who predomimently buy bland foods.

I don't see how that is materially different then saying that they avoid the foods that they are sensitive to in restaurants.

The posts crossed.

But the thrust of my point is that in spite of their condition, super-tasters function normally in a society where normal tasters set the definition of good taste. The main point being that the article really had no bearing on the discussion we've been having.

Of course it's relevant. You have been claiming the existance of 'objective' standards of taste on which everyone can agree. This presupposes that everyone (with sufficient training) tastes things the same. They don't. When a super-taster says that your favorite wine is, to her, too bitter it is not because she isn't trained but because she tastes it differently. And it is absurd to suggest that she is wrong.

[Steve Plotnicki]

When a super-taster says that your favorite wine is, to her, too bitter it is not because she isn't trained but because she tastes it differently. And it is absurd to suggest that she is wrong.

I disagree with this. The standard for evaluating whether someone can read or whether they can't is their actually being able to do it. They don't change the standard for dyslexics and call illiteracy reading. (My most sincere apology to anyone with this type of disability.) It's the same with tasting. Someone who is a super-taster with a palate that considers delicious things to be off has no sense of taste (as good taste is defined by commonly held standards.) The standard doesn't slide because of their diability. Good try though.

[Toby]

Regarding prune juice and steak: Paul Prudhomme wrote a cookbook called Fork in the Road, an attempt to cut the fat in his recipes to under 30%. He was having trouble getting a complete, "round" (sweet, salty, spicy) taste without using butter or oil. He came up with reduced fruit juices (apples, prunes, grapes) used in place of butter with meats, giving a "hint of sweetness, a richer color, a slightly fuller texture."

(Just an aside.)

[g.johnson]

The standard for evaluating whether someone can read or whether they can't is their actually being able to do it. They don't change the standard for dyslexics and call illiteracy reading... It's the same with tasting. Someone who is a super-taster with a palate that considers delicious things to be off has no sense of taste (as good taste is defined by commonly held standards.)

Quite. But the super-taster is a better ‘reader’, not worse, and can detect the presence of chemicals that you can not. You cannot say that she doesn’t taste sour where you taste sweet (unless she’s lying). You therefore cannot reasonably claim that her reaction (“I don’t like this”) is wrong. All you can say is that the majority reaction is different. So we are left with the position that two people, equally trained in tasting, can reach different conclusions. In other words, taste is subjective. QED.

[yvonne johnson]

Someone who is a super-taster with a palate that considers delicious things to be off has no sense of taste (as good taste is defined by commonly held standards.) The standard doesn't slide because of their diability. Good try though.

So, Jacques Pepin is disabled, and has no sense of taste? He's a supertaster it seems. And it appears many chefs in training are too.

http://info.med.yale.edu/external/pubs/ym_...ver/taste1.html

[Steve Plotnicki]

But for that to be true, you assume that being a better taster is an asset when it might be a liability.

Where you keep going wrong, is you keep refusing to admit that there is such a thing as good taste. The ability to hear things better, see things better, and taste things better. Being able to do any of those things more intensely doesn't necessarily mean you can do them any better. For example, even if it's a bad one, let's say someone had super-vision and the acuteness of it prevented them from seeing the beauty of an Impressionist painting the way the artist intended it to look. Or their hearing was so acute that what we commonly hold to be in tune was heard as completely out of key so they couldn't enjoy a string quartet because it sounded like people scratching their nails on a blackboard. Good taste is to be able to appreciate it within the context something is supposed to exist in. Like reading, either you can function in that context or you can't. The scale doesn't slide.

[Stone]

With forwards by Henry James, Oscar Wilde, Marcel Proust, and Noel Coward

[Wilfrid]

Okay, Steve, step aside and let me deal with the smug bastard.

Your example, GJ, isn't a counter-example. Take the results of the article at face value. A significant minority of the population have different hard wiring in their tongues than the rest. the consequences of that, I think we've all demonstrated we don't really know for sure. Yes, they may be "better" readers in the sense that they can discriminate more chemicals than other tasters, but that does not necessarily make them more "efficient" readers for a particular defined purpose. As you know, the typical individual successfully edits out the vast majority of the sensory data available to them at any one point. They have to in order to function. Someone hyper-sensitive to such data might be a "better" reader of the world around them in that sense, but not necessarily a more efficient one.

But moving to the real point. The claim that, within given cultural and historical horizons, there are gastronomic standards, and that it is in principle possible to describe a deviation from those standards as a mistake (whether it be prune juice with steak, preferring your potatoes raw or putting custard on your shepherd's pie) is not, I think, dependent on the assumption that we all share the same physiological hard wiring.

I said all along that certain individuals, having been offered the chance to experience eating and drinking in accordance with those standards, may nevertheless choose to adhere to certain personal preferences which taste good to them. And I said they may have good reasons for those decisions - it doesn't make them idiots, but it doesn't stop them being "wrong" either. Maybe eccentric taste bud configurations are one of those reasons. But the fact is that we do have standards, and they have evolved against a background of people having whatever taste buds and olfactory receptors they have.

So I think the two arguments miss each other.

SHORT VERSION: If someone's tongue is hot wired so that custard on curry tastes good to them, there's no denying that fact, but it doesn't negate the principle that, by and large, it is wrong to put custard on curry.

[g.johnson]

But for that to be true, you assume that being a better taster is an asset when it might be a liability.

No I'm not.

Where you keep going wrong, is you keep refusing to admit that there is such a thing as good taste.

No I do not. There is such a thing as good taste. Happy? However, good taste is a matter of opinion.

[Steve Plotnicki]

However, good taste is a matter of opinion.

Do you mean to say that a person who has worts that almost completely cover their face and body can be considered handsome or beautiful? Looking that is. They certainly can be a beautiful person. Do you think that the person who thinks someone who meets that description is handsome or beautiful can be considered to have good taste? Can someone who thinks the Royal Albert Memorial isn't ugly be considered to have good taste?

If good taste is subjective, why would good taste be a qualification of people who work in the fashion industry? Or of architects? Or of orchestra condutors? If the standard was merely subjective then anyone could do those jobs. But it's a fact that hardly anyone can do those jobs. Isn't that empirical proof that taste is objective?

[Zeb A]

You cannot say that she doesn’t taste sour where you taste sweet (unless she’s lying). You therefore cannot reasonably claim that her reaction (“I don’t like this”) is wrong. All you can say is that the majority reaction is different.

And, a Quote from Wilfrid

"I said all along that certain individuals, having been offered the chance to experience eating and drinking in accordance with those standards, may nevertheless choose to adhere to certain personal preferences which taste good to them. And I said they may have good reasons for those decisions - it doesn't make them idiots, but it doesn't stop them being "wrong" either."

If I am not mistaken, we are now down to a narrow dispute:

Group A believes that idiosyncratic tasters are wrong.

Group B believes that idiosyncratic tasters are simply idiosyncratic.

I guess the other issue is: are Group A people snobs?

Personally, I don't think all Group A people are snobs. It depends on whether they make or convey a value judgment in their estimation of indiosyncratic tasters as wrong.

[tsquare]

Wow Steve, I think I love you. Hardly anyone can be an architect and we have good taste unilaterally? Unfortunately, the reality is that suffering through (or enjoying the benefits of) an education and licensing exam will give anyone access to the title Architect. You can even still do this through internship without benefit of formal education. Some are good, some are very bad, some have exquisite taste and some don't. Economic survival in this field is probably less tied to taste than marketing, timing, and dumb luck. We don't weed out the chaf through taste, in this business.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Personally, I don't think all Group A people are snobs. It depends on whether they make or convey a value judgment in their estimation of indiosyncratic tasters as wrong.

This is exactly right. The reason I don't make value judgements about the palates of people who grew up in the U.K. is that having grown up on the grey mush they eat over there, their palate was clearly trained in a way that could be described as idiocyncratic. And that's putting it nicely

Wilfrid - My apologies but I couldn't resist.

Tsquare - I love how you turned my statement into one that says every architect has good taste. Of course there are architects who handle the utilitarian aspects of the profession where taste isn't part of their job. So can I have leave to amend my statement into saying that people in the design aspect of the job are supposed to have good taste. Of course they don't always, and even when they do, what they design isn't always in good taste. But can we agree that if I made a list of all of the famous architects of the 20th century, good taste (in design that is) is what they had in common?

[g.johnson]

Okay, Steve, step aside and let me deal with the smug bastard.

Bring it on, Essex boy.

Someone hyper-sensitive to such data might be a "better" reader of the world around them in that sense, but not necessarily a more efficient one.

You can say the same thing about connoisseurs. But I am really not arguing that super-tasters are better tasters (though in one sense they certainly are) only that they cannot be considered deficient tasters. Just trying to head Plotters off at the pass.

The claim that, within given cultural and historical horizons, there are gastronomic standards, and that it is in principle possible to describe a deviation from those standards as a mistake (whether it be prune juice with steak, preferring your potatoes raw or putting custard on your shepherd's pie) is not, I think, dependent on the assumption that we all share the same physiological hard wiring.

1) If you are willing to admit cultural and historical context why not physiological context?

2) I am not arguing that there are no standards but I don’t see how it’s possible to describe anyone who does not agree with those standards as wrong or mistaken. Idiosyncratic, maybe, but not wrong. Statements like ‘the earth is flat’ are wrong. Statements like ‘Sprite tastes good with steak’ are not wrong in anything like the same sense.

[g.johnson]

However, good taste is a matter of opinion.

Do you mean to say that a person who has worts that almost completely cover their face and body can be considered handsome or beautiful?

What about fatness? Regarded as a good thing a hundred years ago and still is in some parts of the world. But is now thought ugly in the west.

[Suzanne F]

However, good taste is a matter of opinion.

...

If good taste is subjective, why would good taste be a qualification of people who work in the fashion industry? Or of architects? Or of orchestra condutors? If the standard was merely subjective then anyone could do those jobs. But it's a fact that hardly anyone can do those jobs. Isn't that empirical proof that taste is objective?

Sorry Steve: it's not some platonic ideal of "good taste" that gets folks work in those -- or other -- fields. It is merely having taste that co-incides with that of the people who control the hiring. That is where the subjectivity comes in. Also sharing the business "vision" that the hirers have. In fact, the latter qualification may be the more important one; why else do so many chefs get fired after the less-than-glowing reviews come out?

And to get back to "the fashion industry" -- can you honestly state that you think, say, Vivienne Westwood and Ralph Lauren and Coco Chanel share the same good taste?

Or architecture: Philip Johnson (the self-proclaimed whore) and Frank Lloyd Wright and Stanford White?

Music: Skitch Henderson and Gustav Mahler and Pierre Boulez?

Dare you?

[g.johnson]

Personally, I don't think all Group A people are snobs.  It depends on whether they make or convey a value judgment in their estimation of indiosyncratic tasters as wrong.

To describe someone as 'wrong' is a value judgment.

[Zeb A]

To describe someone as 'wrong' is a value judgment.

Yeah. You may be right on that. I guess it depends of what the word "wrong" means, or how it was used in context.

Does "wrong" mean inconsistent with majority view?

Does "wrong" mean inconsistent with some absolute "standard" that the person just doesn't "get"?

Who sets such a "standard"? God? the Majority?

With respect to matters of taste, how is the "standard" established?

Have "established standards" of taste changed over time?

Does "wrong" have a different connotation when used in connection with a statement about physical facts (the earth is flat) as opposed to when used in connection with a statement about matters of taste (Sprite tastes good with steak)?

[Steve Plotnicki]

To describe someone as 'wrong' is a value judgment.

No it's not. It's just saying that they can't meet the criteria set forth. Same as not being able to solve a math problem. And you know what, taste is easier. Because when it comes to matters of taste, there's a range of acceptable answers. So to not have good taste, someone has to be pretty poor at meeting the criteria.

Suzanne - You have pointed to why some people are worker bees and some are bosses. The bosses have taste to an extent that is sufficient to participate in their field or their market. And the worker bees conform to that image. But if the workers have good enough taste on their own, they can break out of the fold and make their place in the world.

The market measure who has good taste and who doesn't. And like in every other example I raise, the people who are most expert in the market are the ones who drive the market. So Lauren, Chanel and Westwood do not need to have the same sense of taste. That's because while they each work in fashion, there is a seperate market within fashion for each of them. But if you are to define good taste as anyone who is successful in the fashion industry, then yes, all three of them have taste sufficient to operate in fashion.

[Lord Michael Lewis]

Suzanne - You have pointed to why some people are worker bees and some are bosses. The bosses have taste to an extent that is sufficient to participate in their field or their market. And the worker bees conform to that image. But if the workers have good enough taste on their own, they can break out of the fold and make their place in the world.

Thuuunk!

(That's my jaw hitting the parquet).

Plotinki, you are a dangerously insane fascist.

[g.johnson]

It's just saying that they can't meet the criteria set forth. Same as not being able to solve a math problem.

I can prove the solution to the math problem is correct. Prove to me that sprite (or red wine) tastes good with steak.

You cannot. Your only recourse is to quoting the majority opinion. By that argument, GWB is 'objectively' the best person for US president.

[LaNiña]

Suzanne - You have pointed to why some people are worker bees and some are bosses. The bosses have taste to an extent that is sufficient to participate in their field or their market. And the worker bees conform to that image. But if the workers have good enough taste on their own, they can break out of the fold and make their place in the world.

Thuuunk!

(That's my jaw hitting the parquet).

Plotinki, you are a dangerously insane fascist.

No he's not, you're just in denial about how the real world works.

[Lord Michael Lewis]

Suzanne - You have pointed to why some people are worker bees and some are bosses. The bosses have taste to an extent that is sufficient to participate in their field or their market. And the worker bees conform to that image. But if the workers have good enough taste on their own, they can break out of the fold and make their place in the world.

Thuuunk!

(That's my jaw hitting the parquet).

Plotinki, you are a dangerously insane fascist.

No he's not, you're just in denial about how the real world works.

Nina, if there's one thing worse than a snob, it's an arse-licking snob.