High Standards

[jaybee]

I don't know. I have such mixed feelings on this subject. But I"ll say this - after eating that disaster they call a "pizza" today at Otto - anybody who likes it is wrong. Just wrong

Now Nina, LXT and I ate that pizza and we enjoyed them (edit: though we did moderate our praise and say that they were not the highlight of the meal). Let me ask you, if Mario had called the thing, say, Sclaffiorza ala Batalia con funghi, or con quatre stagiones, or... and described it as a Sardinian flat griddle bread with various toppings, instead of pizza, would you have been so caustic?

Or have your high standards set by New Haven pizza upbringing and Dom so narrowed your ability to enjoy anything other than their versions of pizza?

Edited January 24, 2003 by jaybee (log)

[Tonyfinch]

Even if we concede that Macrosan's friend is wrong for liking shoe leather beef, my question is so what? What difference does it make? It doesn't make a difference to those of us who like our beef rare. We'll still eat it rare. It doesn't make any difference to Macrosan's friend. He'll carry on eating tough beef. Everybody's happy. The fact that he's wrong is of academic interest only. If the point of proving somebody wrong is to get them to see that they are wrong and prove to them that you are right you will have failed as long as he continues to behave wrongly and eat tough beef. Even if he concedes that you are right and he is wrong he will shrug his shoulders and continue to eat tough beef anyway. So what practical outcome does proving him wrong achieve? And if the answer is "none" then why bother?

[Steve Plotnicki]

Even if we concede that Macrosan's friend is wrong for liking shoe leather beef, my question is so what? What difference does it make? It doesn't make a difference to those of us who like our beef rare. We'll still eat it rare. It doesn't make any difference to Macrosan's friend. He'll carry on eating tough beef. Everybody's happy. The fact that he's wrong is of academic interest only. If the point of proving somebody wrong is to get them to see that they are wrong and prove to them that you are right you will have failed as long as he continues to behave wrongly and eat tough beef. Even if he concedes that you are right and he is wrong he will shrug his shoulders and continue to eat tough beef anyway. So what practical outcome does proving him wrong achieve? And if the answer is "none" then why bother?

Well that is a fine defense but you have switched the subject. You have to start with Macrosan's assertion that there isn't any right or wrong. Only a matter of opinion. So it isn't that we are looking to prove Macro's friend wrong, it's that we are trying to prove Macro's contention to be false.

[Toby]

Well, it was my friend who liked the tough beef. And the problem for me was how to cook for him, because I liked to cook for him (on an abstract level, anyway), but found it a great big waste of good meat and no fun at all. This person's palate, in general, was very dulled.

[macrosan]

Even if we concede that Macrosan's friend is wrong ...

Just for the sake of accuracy, Tony, it's Toby's friend we were talking about Of course, any friend of Toby's is a friend of mine ...

[Toby]

Somehow, I don't think you'd have wanted to be friends with this person. He also liked frozen creamed spinach in a pouch.

And he wouldn't eat in any restaurant that he hadn't eaten in previously.

Edited January 24, 2003 by Toby (log)

[stellabella]

the problem this creates for me is that i want to invite you all over for dinner but....i'm scared.

[g.johnson]

All that proves is that most people prefer Luger's to MacDonald's.

But why do they prefer it? Is it random? People must go through some routine where they evaluate it before they reach a conclusion don't they? And why do so many people come to the same conclusion? What does the fact that 50 out of 50 newspaper critics could choose the same burger mean? Some of this must prove something. It can't be completely up to the individual palate. Too many palates are alike for that to be the case.

Because people with similar backgrounds have similar tastes.

I have no objection to the statement "Luger's burger is better than MacDonald's", which means simply that more people like it. Completely uncontentious. What I do think is untenable is the idea that these standards are absolute so that anyone who disagrees is 'wrong'.

Edited January 24, 2003 by g.johnson (log)

[Toby]

What I do think is untenable is the idea that these standards are absolute so that anyone who disagrees is 'wrong'.

I finally concluded that my friend who liked the tough steak just had a bad palate.

[Steve Plotnicki]

But wait a second, which wrong are you speaking about? Wrong not to like the Luger's burger better or wrong not to be able to assess the qualitative difference between the two? How many people who can do the assessment do you think would choose the McDonald's burger?

[hollywood]

Even if we concede that Macrosan's friend is wrong for liking shoe leather beef, my question is so what? What difference does it make? It doesn't make a difference to those of us who like our beef rare. We'll still eat it rare. It doesn't make any difference to Macrosan's friend. He'll carry on eating tough beef. Everybody's happy. The fact that he's wrong is of academic interest only. If the point of proving somebody wrong is to get them to see that they are wrong and prove to them that you are right you will have failed as long as he continues to behave wrongly and eat tough beef. Even if he concedes that you are right and he is wrong he will shrug his shoulders and continue to eat tough beef anyway. So what practical outcome does proving him wrong achieve? And if the answer is "none" then why bother?

Well that is a fine defense but you have switched the subject. You have to start with Macrosan's assertion that there isn't any right or wrong. Only a matter of opinion. So it isn't that we are looking to prove Macro's friend wrong, it's that we are trying to prove Macro's contention to be false.

Is there a right way and a wrong way to quote? Do some lack the finesse to do it correctly? Would anyone who knew how to quote really agree with the latter method? Wouldn't we all agree it's wrong?

[SobaAddict70]

frozen creamed spinach in a pouch.

GACK

brings back memories of Stouffer's...

SA

[lxt]

If price = merit (or even if it is the best guide we have to it) then why would we need tools like restaurant guides, eGullet and restaurant critics? Could we not save time and money by simply choosing the most expensive item in the most expensive restaurant in town?

Jonathan, price is not equal to merit. Price includes merit as one of its many components where merit may not even be the main constituent in shaping the price. For instance, lack of competition or high rental space may boost the price of the restaurant’s food beyond the merits of the actual food served. However, more often than not price is an indicator of the merit of the product, and choosing an item with a higher price tag, if you are not interested in performing an extensive research to find a bargain, should result in a better satisfaction. Frankly, I think it is hard not to agree with this statement. You do need critics and restaurant guides to distinguish how well the merit was represented by its price. You could consider critics as quality assurance employees for the food industry. For products more tangible than food, QA is usually performed once before the product is released. Food, however, requires constant evaluation and supervision.

[jaybee]

All that proves is that most people prefer Luger's to MacDonald's.

But why do they prefer it? Is it random? People must go through some routine where they evaluate it before they reach a conclusion don't they? And why do so many people come to the same conclusion? What does the fact that 50 out of 50 newspaper critics could choose the same burger mean? Some of this must prove something. It can't be completely up to the individual palate. Too many palates are alike for that to be the case.

Because people with similar backgrounds have similar tastes.

I have no objection to the statement "Luger's burger is better than MacDonald's", which means simply that more people like it. Completely uncontentious. What I do think is untenable is the idea that these standards are absolute so that anyone who disagrees is 'wrong'.

If someone told me that they thought canned Budweiser was better beer than, say draft Stella Artois I'd say they has lousy taste in beer. If pressed I'd say that their criteria for assessing beer was very different from mine. If pressed further, I'd say that they didn't know shit about beer.

Now I recall the taste of draft beers in an old town Dusseldorf tavern and a Munich brauhous. I've never had anything near as good in the US of A. So I've been to the mountain top of beer. Anyone who hasn't can't say they know what good is. And that's a fact.

[tommy]

Now I recall the taste of draft beers in an old town Dusseldorf tavern and a Munich brauhous.  I've never had anything near as good in the US of A.  So I've been to the mountain top of beer.  Anyone who hasn't can't say they know what good is.  And that's a fact.

that's cause you're just so great.

[jaybee]

Now I recall the taste of draft beers in an old town Dusseldorf tavern and a Munich brauhous.  I've never had anything near as good in the US of A.  So I've been to the mountain top of beer.  Anyone who hasn't can't say they know what good is.  And that's a fact.

that's cause you're just so great.

That's true but off topic.

[lxt]

Actually, you are exactly right about that. It's an interesting point that the price of (say) Kobe beef is determined both by what the wealthy connoisseur is prepared to pay for it and by what the average person is not prepared to pay for it. So we have a position where people who have no knowledge of Kobe beef are contributing significantly to its price. But surely they cannot contribute to an understanding of its value.

Being unable to afford a product is different from being “not prepared” to buy it. It doesn’t indicate preference, it indicates financial impotence. Considering that taste can be developed due to the intake of high-quality food, I can’t imagine that a person buying meat for any reason, including purely for the sake of prestige, wouldn’t be able to blind taste Kobe against inferior beef and tell the difference.

I cannot accept that people who perfectly well understand worth, and know how to define it in its own terms, and can perfectly well argue the case for A being of higher merit than B, insist on using market price as an indicator or form of measurement. The only reason I have ever been able to deduce for this intellectually irrational position is that such people wish to place a non-intellectual and non-negotiable barrier in the way of outsiders who might wish enter their wealth-based elite.

Price includes a collective assessment of the product, though it may deviate due to some external factors that take priority in calculating the price. The price may not even be represented properly, but it will at some point be corrected. However, it is the only available system allowing us to objectively assess products. It will rarely happen that a $10 wine will be of the same quality as a $100 wine. Being able to afford both wines, if the preference of the person lies with a $10 wine, then the position of dismissing the price as an approximate objective standard becomes “intellectually irrational” and naïve. Attempts to find fallacies in the existing approach seem to divert attention toward either 1) class warfare; or 2) an inability to distinguish excellent from good and bad.

[Jonathan Day]

Jonathan, price is not equal to merit.  Price includes merit as one of its many components where merit may not even be the main constituent in shaping the price. For instance, lack of competition or high rental space may boost the price of the restaurant’s food beyond the merits of the actual food served.  However, more often than not price is an indicator of the merit of the product, and choosing an item with a higher price tag, if you are not interested in performing an extensive research to find a bargain, should result in a better satisfaction.  Frankly, I think it is hard not to agree with this statement.  You do need critics and restaurant guides to distinguish how well the merit was represented by its price.  You could consider critics as quality assurance employees for the food industry.  For products more tangible than food, QA is usually performed once before the product is released.  Food, however, requires constant evaluation and supervision.

But we are interested in performing extensive research to find a bargain. That's the main reason we are here.

All sorts of things drive prices out of line with "merit" (and we have still not agreed how to measure that, but set that aside): restricted competition, single-round games (as at tourist resorts, where it is unlikely that a visitor will return and it is in the restaurant's interest to charge as much as possible for as low quality as possible), high factor costs; but even more, fads and trends: aceto balsamico was "hot" a few years ago, so let's serve it with as many items as possible and add $3 per spoonful. Other products and preparations are "passé". Like the securities market, this one is beset by bubbles and crashes. Securities prices at the height of the internet boom were poor guides to future profitability. Even in the long run, endogenous phenomena (overshoot, undershoot, and otherwise flawed models on the part of investors) account for a huge percentage of long-run equity price variance. (For a lot more on this, click here -- the second paper sets out most of the theory, though it takes a long time to download).

Food critics are not QA employees for the industry; their duty of care, to the extent that they have any, goes in exactly the opposite direction: to the consumer. I study Cabrales's and Plotnicki's and lizziee's and other eGulleteers' experiences so that I can avoid paying high prices for rubbish, and so that I can find low-priced places (DiFara's, La Cave, Le Pigalle, etc.) where the quality of the food is out of line with its price.

Where I can't "do extensive research to find a bargain" is on business travel, something I do a lot. And I can assure you that, on the road, price alone is a very poor guide to quality.

All this is not to say that prices do not provide useful information. They do. But if, as you say in another post, price were "the only available system allowing us to objectively assess products", then we would have no need for the so-called "objective" assessments of other posters on this site.

[Steve Plotnicki]

It will rarely happen that a $10 wine will be of the same quality as a $100 wine.

Lxt - To actually find this you have to be looking at wines from different regions. 2001 German wines might be of the same or better quality as say, 2001 white Burgundy while being 30%-60% of the price, but the reason is they are less popular among collectors because the style of Riesling is more intelectual and not opulent like WB. But while this exercise works when comparing different regions, or different varietals in the same region, I would think it would be next to impossible to find a 2001 German wine for $10 that is of the same quality as a $100 one. Possible as a freak accident (we are talking about nature you know) but highly, highly unlikely. And if you did, the reason would most probably some type of inefficiency like the producer didn't know or didn't want to bring the wine to market properly.

Jaybee - There have been two categories of disagreement in this thread that I see. Macrosan's saying it's just a matter of opinion, because the dining experience is about personal likes and dislikes, and Glyn's saying that telling people they are wrong doesn't hold because we can't nail down the concept of "tastes good" as a matter of exact science. And while they both happen to be right, I also feel that the points they are making do not address the issue I have been raising, and which you raised in your German beer example. The issue isn't whether it is accurate to call someone who can't tell wrong, the issue is whether it is reasonable. When you proclaim that the person who likes Budweiser better then tap in Dusseldorf "wrong," you aren't claiming 100% specificity, but it is reasonable to describe the taste of the person that way. You are just measuring it against a standard that has been adopted by a certain group of people. And I think the difference is a subtle one. You might not like Foie gras and I might think that a reasonable statement, which is the Macrosan assertion. Different strokes. But if you said Foie gras was bad you would simply be wrong. And if you said that Mrs. Gold's Chopped Liver which you buy in your supermarket prepared food section was better then Foie gras, "wrong" would be a reasonable thing to say about your opinion. Maybe this approach will end the debate on semantics here. Because anyone who thinks that Twinkies is a better dessert then the Pierre Herme Isfahan, both doesn't know what he is talking about and is also wrong about it. But I hope they enjoy the Twinkies.

As to price/quality/merit etc., that is an even more inexact science. But I think it is reasonable to say that price usually reflects quality and it's probably reasonable to say that it always does with the occassional exception. It also reflects factors other then quality like supply, but it is rare in my opinion for supply and demand to be so distorted that the price of inferior things is significantly higher then better things. But it does happen and taking my German/White Burgundy example, taking the position that German wines are better wouldn't be an unreasonable one (though I would personally think that is wrong) and those wines are priced more cheaply then the burgs are.

[Jonathan Day]

There have been two categories of disagreement in this thread that I see. Macrosan's saying it's just a matter of opinion, because the dining experience is about personal likes and dislikes, and Glyn's saying that telling people they are wrong doesn't hold because we can't nail down the concept of "tastes good" as a matter of exact science. And while they both happen to be right, I also feel that the points they are making do not address the issue I have been raising, and which you raised in your German beer example. The issue isn't whether it is accurate to call someone who can't tell wrong, the issue is whether  it is reasonable. When you proclaim that the person who likes Budweiser better then tap in Dusseldorf "wrong," you aren't claiming 100% specificity, but it is reasonable to describe the taste of the person that way. You are just  measuring it against a standard that has been adopted by a certain group of people.

A major step forward in the conversation. Reasonableness, not accuracy, should be our goal. These are statements not about the abstract nature of things but about the views of "a certain group of people". For our purposes it is useful -- reasonable -- to talk in the way we tend to on these boards.

This advance lets us move away from "objective" as a descriptor of statements about food and wine without descending into the nonsense of pure relativism. I think a philosopher (Wilfrid, JAZ, where are you when we need you?) would say that these judgements are neither objective nor subjective but intersubjective -- i.e. "adopted by a certain group of people."

We are still left with a problem: how to identify members of "the certain group of people"? We can say that "most gourmets agree that rare steak tastes better than well-done steak". But how do we distinguish a gourmet from a non-gourmet?

These statements about food sound a bit like "99 out of 100 dentists agree that BrightWhite is a better toothpaste than GumsBeGone", but perhaps they are closer to "Most informed political observers agree that ... etc.". The members of the class are harder to identify.

I can check on a dentist's credentials: academic degrees, professional license and the like. As far as most people are concerned, a gourmet is anyone who says he or she is a gourmet. I go back to Smith, Jones and Wilson, my hypothetical food experts. Each is "well dined", but they disagree. Apart from schemes like the Master of Wine (which may well be flawed) we have few objective tests of connoisseurship.

[Tonyfinch]

A soccer phone in show in the UK is deluged week after week with disgruntled fans saying that referees decisions are "wrong". No way is it a "matter of opinion". The refereees's an idiot, got defective eyesight, doesn't understand the game etc. etc.

One day the presenter said he was only going to take calls about wrong referees if that referees wrong decision went IN FAVOUR of your team.

Guess what? Not one call.

The point is that when we talk about right and wrong we ALWAYS start from the automatic assumption that we are the right ones. Is anyone here pontificating about right and wrong as regards food opinion and "defective palates" and so on going to admit that in some instances THEY are the wrong ones and that THEIR palate may be "defective" in some culinary areas?

Where are you wrong and others right?

I wait with interest.

Edited January 25, 2003 by Tonyfinch (log)

[Jonathan Day]

It will rarely happen that a $10 wine will be of the same quality as a $100 wine.

I will grant that. And I would guess that wine pricing is somewhat more efficient than restaurant pricing, owing to things like auctions, wide geographic distribution of some brands and the like, not to mention the existence of comparative wine guides, Robert Parker, etc.

But the example is still flawed, because it is based on extremes. The more common and more practical issue is whether a restaurant meal that costs $40 could be a lot better than one costing $60, or even $80. And this happens all the time. It happens more frequently when you do your research on this board before dining out.

I am using "better" in the sense of Steve Plotnicki's latest post, "reasonableness" rather than "objectivity".

[Steve Plotnicki]

Well I guess we have proven that U.K. football fans can't view the game objectively. Well they can't view their food objectively. Why stop there .

But you know, and I say this all of the time, at least I try to, if you just read what the writer is saying and the type of comparisons they are making, you can tell the difference between who doesn't prefer something and who doesn't understand something. Take the famous meat example. Rare meat is juicy, well done is dry. The end. I have never heard a proper argument that explains that dry is better then juicy. Juicy gives off more flavor chemically. And where in the cooking process do we ever seek to lessen the flavor of anything unless it starts out as too harsh in its raw state? And raw meat starts out pretty much tasteless. Cooking releases the juices. Where is the argument that says the most flavor isn't the best result? Okay there are some arguments that say the texture is important too. And the temperature of the meat has to be a certain temperature so you aren't just eating raw meat. Okay I can see that as part of the acceptable answers. But that transformation occurs well before you even get to medium, let alone well done.

Part of me wants to say that in the future, some scientist will plot out what tastes good means on a piece of paper. Just like the chefs now are working on molecular gastronomy. At that time, taste will cease from being quasi-subjective to being even more objective, or inter-subjective as Jonathan says. And people who do not naturally like certain tastes will learn how to acquire them. The same way that kids who might not naturally take to geometry still learn it and pass their finals. But instead of the repitition method which Jeffrey Steingarten so humorously writes about in his book (he says if you force yourself to eat something ten times in a row you will learn to like it,) there will be methoology for teaching a hierarchy of tastes and flavors to people. Now that would be a worthwhile exercise for the Ferran Adria's of the world to undertake. The ulitmate codification of a hierarchy of flavors and how they affect us.

[Lord Michael Lewis]

I have never heard a proper argument that explains that dry is better then juicy. Juicy gives off more flavor chemically.

Not true, it's the browning reactions involving these juices that create flavour; more well done = more browning reaction = more flavour (not necessarily pleasant flavour).

And where in the cooking process do we ever seek to lessen the flavor of anything unless it starts out as too harsh in its raw state?

Although you half answer your own question, you don't seem to realize its implication. The true answer is that we seek to dilute (lessen) natural flavours all the time; this is one of the principles of cooking.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Gee that's funny, I must have eaten meat something like, 5000 times in my life. I'm pretty sure that I have experienced the following;

raw meat - no natural juices, hardly any flavor

properly cooked meat - natural juices released, maximum flavor

well done meat - no natural juices as they have dried out, less flavor

But maybe that's me and I have been eating special meat. As for lessening/diluting flavors, I thought I dealt with that. That's why we don't serve green peppers raw very often. Cooking them changes the flavor into something less harsh. Which is what I thought I said. But carry on otherwise.