"Tastes Good" does not equal "Is Good"

[DonRocks]

One day an apparition appeared before me, and made the following

offer: you can have the best sex you’ve ever had in your life,

IRA sex, the kind of sex where you’d cash in your entire retirement

account to experience just one time.

“Cool!”

But there’s one hitch…

Nervously, I asked, “what’s the hitch?”

It has to be in a dark room.

“Are you kidding? Bring it on!”

Are you sure?

“Am I sure? I’m a guy! Of course I’m sure.

Bring it on!

And so I showed up at the appointed hour and location and waited

in the dark. I heard a door open, and then shut.

For the next two hours I was in a state of euphoria: without any tawdry

detail, it was indeed IRA sex. Exhausted, content, uplifted beyond my

wildest dreams, everything seemed right with the world

at that moment. And then the lights went on.

“nnnnoooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

“AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!”

“NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!”

I awoke with a start and sat up in my bed, panting, drenched with sweat,

in a state of disorientation and total panic. It was 2 AM, and I had

just had an unspeakable nightmare.

The next day I was shopping at Whole Foods, and I picked up a

beautiful-looking watermelon marked “Conventional,”

and thought about my horrible dream the night before.

I immediately put it down and went over to the boxful

of more-expensive, slightly lesser-looking watermelons

marked “Organic,” picked one up and put it in my

cart, and continued my shopping.

One day I stayed at a Bed and Breakfast in the rural mountains of

Virginia. For breakfast, the hostess served up a marvelous egg dish,

something like a strada but not quite the same. She had sat down

at the table, we were all enjoying the conversation, and I was

commenting on how much I liked this dish. A smile came across

her face, a coquettish smile, the kind of smile a child would have

when he wants to tell you a secret, but also wants to keep you in

suspense. She said, proudly, “it has a secret ingredient that makes

it so good.” “Well I would love to know what it is,” I said,

picking up my fork. And just as I put the next bite into my mouth,

she chirped: “It’s Miracle Whip!” All of a sudden that ethereal, subtle

flavor that had so intrigued me became painfully clear, and this dish

that I was enjoying so much instantly because as pleasurable as

downing a mouthful of castor oil. I then had to sit there and finish

the entire breakfast with her in front of me, beaming, and talking

about all the things she does and all the inexpensive ingredients

she uses to cut corners, and that nobody can ever tell the difference.

I propose that gustatory pleasure is a necessary but insufficient

requirement for greatness. How something tastes is not enough.

There must be substantially more behind any great dish than the

illusory fallacy of “if it tastes good, it is good.” A flawed-but-honest

dish is always superior to something cunningly manipulated to

“fool the diner” into thinking that it’s good. And with that, I invite

your comments and disagreements.

Cheers,

Rocks.

Edited March 10, 2004 by DonRocks (log)

[Katherine]

You seem to be framing the argument as follows:

I liked X until I heard somthing that made me realize that X contains something that is too downscale/not expensive enough for me,

therefore...

I now realize that I never liked X.

It's been argued before. Click here to read eight pages about the horrors of pasta.

[DonRocks]

Hi Katherine,

Thanks for replying.

I read that thread and don't see any correlation between someone not liking pasta and the more universal philosophical point that I was trying to make.

I love great pasta, and I cherish a really well-made piece of rustic bread much more than I would a portion of bad foie gras or caviar.

I'll take an honest Cotes-du-Rhone over a second-rate Grand Cru Burgundy any day of the week.

So I'd like to gently defend my posting against the "downscale/not expensive enough" conclusion that you drew from it, because what I wrote has nothing to do with being expensive, highbrow, elitist, or however someone else might want to paint it.

Does that make sense?

Again, I thank you for your impressions,

Rocks.

[Katherine]

It did appear that you liked what you were eating until you found it had Miracle Whip in it, which is a decidedly downscale ingredient. In the same way, he used to like pasta, but only recently realized not that he tired of it and no longer likes it (were he still able to eat it, that is), but that it never was any good.

Often the reputation of an oft-denigrated product is based on its routine misuse or overuse. I recently started using a touch of MSG in my seitan, and I find this takes the edge off the bready flavor. Yet previously I would not have dreamed of having any in my house, and for that reason had never purchased it before.

Perhaps this is a different issue than the one you intended to discuss. My bad.

[babka]

DonRocks, you have a gift for eloquent provocation. More than once, I've been tempted to follow in your ranted footsteps for the sheer pleasure of such a maladroit experience, only to realize that, more than likely, my time at said bar or restaurant would simply suck.

here, however, I'm either missing you entirely, or you're being more eloquent than provocative. The good Mr. Klc makes the mouth explode with...pop rocks.

Chefs, at times, use...ketchup. (vinegar, salt, and sugar...what could be better? besides butter.)

Conventional watermelons may suck....or they may, properly chilled and shredded at an outdoor table with a pen-knife reach heights unheard of in the kitchen. especially if ouzo's involved.

I don't think I've had the pleasures of Miracle Whip, but I do make my aioli with bottled mayonnaise, if I'm short on time or cooking for myself.

you're making two points here, I think, and I agree wholeheartedly with the second while not following the first. Good food is good food--makes your mouth and stomach happy, gives you a good story quite independent of any conventional wisdom about it, and will hold up to variations a few times.

Good cooking makes good food, sometimes. But sometimes my definition of good cooking is just learning something about the dynamics of chemistry and flavor. And sometimes my definition of good cooking is taking reasonable food and making it look beautiful--when a restaurant embeds the world's most perfect oysters in a wholly unnecessary green cucumber sauce that makes the oysters pop off the plate, while distracting the taste, is that a "cunning manipulation"? or "flawed but honest?" When a place presents its malanga puree with plaintain chips that sog by virtue of their position but make the dish more apparently appetizing than baby food, is that a cunning manipulation again?

I'm going on visuals here because I don't have access to the shortcuts for anything else. But from that logic, when a chef uses miracle whip, balanced out with the appropriate fat, acid, or salt, to achieve a given consistency and/or flavor in a dish, and she achieves that flavor, per the unknowing diner, is that _really_ a cunning manipulation? or a possibly-flawed-but-the-chemistry's-the-same presentation? Maybe the strata wouldn't have held up to another tasting--maybe that etheral flavor, good for a few bites, would have decayed to a cloying sensation in larger quantities. But that, I would argue, is the result of poor cooking (or a too-large-dish), and not an inherent flaw in the miracle whip.

[bleachboy]

I don't know, man. This weekend I made a birthday dinner for a very good friend of mine that involved a very fancy chile con queso. Everybody present agreed that they would rather have the "Velveeta and Ro-Tel" kind. My group of friends calls this phenomenon "grossalicious".

[John W.]

If you ever need to eat Alberto's pepperoni pizza with 1961 Cheval Blanc or 1928 Cos d'Estournel, then Rocks is your man.

Everyone knows that Hellman's is the best.

[Mayhaw Man]

Everybody present agreed that they would rather have the "Velveeta and Ro-Tel" kind. My group of friends calls this phenomenon "grossalicious".

I love that stuff.

[bbq4meanytime]

Rocks, you're nuts. Gimmee some of that stuff your smoking and maybe I might understand your point.

[groucho]

There are many factors one might consider when choosing what to eat: a desire to promote "organic" farming is a fine reason to choose one watermelon over another, and a philosophical stance against consuming overly "processed" or "synthetic" foods (for whatever reason) may cause you to abstain from Miracle Whip. But I think you are raising a different, and quite interesting, issue entirely: how your conception of the food's quality directly affects your gustatory sensations.

This phenomena was recently studied by neuroscientists who monitored the brain activity of subjects taking blind and non-blind taste tests of Pepsi vs. Coke. In the blind taste test, the subject's low-level "reward region" of the brain lit up (on average) significantly more for Pepsi. In the non-blind test, not only did the majority of the subjects claim to prefer Coke, but their brain activity was different as a consequence of their knowledge. For a more complete description, see "There's a Sucker Born in Every Medial Prefrontal Cortex" at the researcher's web site: http://www.hnl.bcm.tmc.edu/print.html. The point is, in this experiment (with two soft drinks which taste pretty similar to my palate, anyway), conception trumps sensation by a large margin, and at a fundamental brain-chemistry level.

So I agree that this is a real and important phenomena in dining, but I come to a different conclusion. Although my conception of food surely factors into my enjoyment, I view this as a failing on my part, not on the part of the dish. As a lover of gustatory pleasure, I aspire to overcome the contaminating effects of my biases, and not let them detract from my enjoyment of anything delicious. I don't want to choose what to eat because of a superior advertising campaign or better brand image.

Whether I choose not to eat something for reasons such as environmental concerns, personal health, culinary philosophy, it's not groovy enough, etc. etc., is a separate issue, but I disagree with the concept of "something cunningly manipulated to 'fool the diner' into thinking that it's good". If it tastes good, then, dammit, it tastes good. Don't let your prefrontal cortex fool you otherwise.

[DonRocks]

Still downing that DC tap water?

Ecoli? Colorless, odorless, tasteless

Chemicals in your (not organic) watermelon? You'll never know.

Margarine instead of butter? Easy to slip past in certain recipes.

Corn syrup instead of cane sugar in your soft drink?

Where does that beautiful mahogany chair you're sitting on come from?

Hormones in your farm-raised salmon that reaches full size in half the time as a wild Coho?

The list goes on, and on, and on.

It all matters, at least it matters to me. And if I have to stand alone, then by golly, I'll stand alone.

No, I'm not militant about it, but it's worth mentioning, discussing and thinking about.

Cheers,

Rocks.

[pastramionrye]

i agree with donrocks wholeheartedly...and it is not an elitist attitude...

for one can gain great satisfaction out of a tomato sauce made by one's grandmother with nothing other than a piece of garlic browned in wonderful olive oil, some tomatoes, onions and parsley...when the ingredients are great and the techniques are great...a synergy occurs.

and while a sauce made with a base of a jarred ragu or prego or a strata made from miracle whip might satisify you for a moment, it will lack the soul of the dish made from great ingredients and great technique. now soul is a very tough term to define, but it is something that one can sense, in music, art, cooking, writing, everything...an undefinable but recognizable sense.

i eat out a lot, and i am also in the business...and i was just talking about this very same thing that don rocks brought up, with my chef today...lets take meatloaf as an example...Cheesecake factory has very good meatlof (and i happen to be a sucker for home style cooking like meatloaf...but cheesecake factory lacks the super quality ingredients and techniques and soul that a real home meatloaf has. And due to the law of dimishing returns. this meatloaf will fizzle out quicker than one made ffrom those wonderful ingredients and great techniques...

so maybe that is where we are left...the law of diminishing returns...something with soul will be more likely to keep exciting ones palette for a longer period of time than the mcdonalds burger or factory meatloaf or miracle whip strata...

*****

this all reminds me of my buddies father who made ribs all the time...and he had his "secret" BBQ sauce...when we finally got him to tell us what it was, he said "two bottles open pit BBQ sauce, 1 bottle KC Masterpiece, ketchup, tabasaco..."

[mags]

It's hard for me to understand just what you're concerned about here. Are you bemoaning the covert chemical adulteration of our food, the unquestioned environment-destroying sources of our furniture? That's what it sounds like in your last post. And I'd go along with you there. I don't like having trans-fats snuck into my food -- if I'm gonna boogie with De Debil, I want him to sign my dance-card first.

But this pro-organic, pro-environment position doesn't appear to have anything to do with the difference between "an honest Cotes-du-Rhone" and "a second-rate Grand Cru Burgundy." Are you suggesting that the latter is somehow contaminated with secret preservatives? That its production requires the decimation of old-growth forest? To bring this post in line with your first, you appear to be suggesting that a dish can't be "honest" if it contains Miracle Whip. This sounds to me like a ridiculous version of fetishizing the "authentic" -- not dissimilar to demanding that the picturesque Thai peasant lady get up at four in the morning to start fermenting those fish, rather than using the bottled fish sauce that's a standard item in her pantry. You wanted the B&B egg dish to conform to your notion of what "should" be in it -- which I'm guessing in this instance included homemade mayo whipped up with Great Granny's whisk and a whole lotta elbow grease.

You didn't have the experience you wanted. But rather than blaming the experience, I'd take a look at the expectations you brought to it.

[DonRocks]

A couple of additional thoughts:

Remember, I'm the person who went to Wendy's drive-thru and scarfed two spicy chicken filets after having 34 courses at the Minibar.

I was grossed out when I found out my last bite at the Minibar was a Listerine-strip sorbet.

Wendy's spicy chicken filets: there's a good example of something that tastes good but isn't.

And the converse to what we've been discussing? Nora.

There's one other thing I neglected to mention. When the lights went on in my dream:

“nnnnoooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

“AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!”

“NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!”

Well ... that was the other person in the room screaming.

That's why I was so upset.

Edited March 10, 2004 by DonRocks (log)

[morela]

Secret ingredients are majestic, until they cease to be secrets anymore.

I learn from television, eating Cheetos and the like while I'm at it...

****************************************************************

Man: This drink is delicious. And my phlegm feels looser. What do you call it?

Homer: It's called a Flaming--

Moe: Moe! That's right a Flaming Moe. My name is Moe and I invented it, that's why it's called a Flaming Moe.

AND THEN:

Homer: The secret ingredient is --

Moe: Homer, no!

Homer: Cough syrup! Nothing but plain, ordinary, over-the-counter

children's cough syrup!

Flaming Moe's

[Mayhaw Man]

Wendy's spicy chicken filets:  there's a good example of something that tastes good but isn't.

I haven't eaten at Wendy's in years, but I am wondering why this sandwich is an example of something that "tastes good but isn't"? Is it the ingredients? Perhaps it is the fact that it comes from a fast food place wrapped in paper or maybe the fact that anyone can get the same sandwich no matter what Wendy's outlet they go to?

Maybe the nutritional content is not up to snuff?

I have completely missed the point that you tried to make in your first post. If it is that food made from scratch is somehow more satisfing than something mass produced, then I would probably agree (although a pretty good argument can be made that any restaurant from El Bulli down to a neighborhood pizza joint does the same thing over and over again and at some point the line between scratch and pre fab becomes unclear-no matter the price or the technical skill involved).

If I am understanding your diatribe correctly I suppose that I disagree with you. I think that there are some foods that are really good that might contain items that may or may not have a large amount of "soul" in them from the get go.

There was a fair amount of discussion in this thread about a dish that contains canned cream soup. Certainly there is nothing amazing or soulful about the canned cream soup, but the particular dish that several of us were discussing (King Ranch Chicken) is absolutely a soulful experience for many people who were raised eating it. I think (generally) that the resulting dish is often (not always) more important than the sum of the ingredients so I suppose that I am more broadly in the camp (to paraphrase Duke Ellington) of "If it tastes good, it is good".

Now that is not to say that I choose to eat stuff that contains alot of crap. I haven't eaten fast food for years as I would rather ingest salt and fat in more entertaining and satisfying ways than cramming it all into a fast food meal (I can count the trips through fast food window lines that I have made in the past 5 years on one hand). But on the other hand I am a sucker for a well made oyster po boy and eat a couple of them a week for lunch-I am sure that there is as much salt in that delectible sandwich as there is in a spicy chicken sandwich but it is made to order and served on delicious, fresh bread and has more soul in one bite that 10,000 Spicy Chicken Sandwiches.

Incidentally-the differences between corn syrup and cane sugar and the differences between farm raised, hormone laden salmon and the wild version do not equate. While there are dramatic taste differences in hfcs and cane sugar ultimately it all comes down to sucrose. Sugar is broadly sugar. On the other hand hormone laden, farm raised fish certainly doesn't taste as good and might not even be good for the consumer in the long run (no one actually knows at this point). These are two totally different levels of seriousness. What is your point here? Clarify for all of us as this might be an interesting topic if we knew what the topic was (although that clearly doesn't stop anyone here, including me, from chiming in with an opinion ).

[Al_Dente]

You kinda lost me on this one Mr Rocks. The Miracle Whip issue just isn't on the same scale as your analogy of the lights coming on to illuminate the horror of finding what I presume to be something along the lines of your grandmother, or your father-in-law, or perhaps a highly skilled and shaved orangutan. It would be more akin to the lights coming up and seeing a pimple on the nose of an otherwise attractive lover.

You were enjoying that breakfast. I say get the recipe!

[bilrus]

Isn't the point about the perception of it all?

The Miracle Whip dish was good UNTIL he knew it was Miracle Whip.

The dish with margarine might taste fine, the difference might even be imperceptible to the tounge, but once you know it is margarine and not butter, doesn't that change the perception of the dish and then its taste (which is all really perception anyway)?

[pastramionrye]

So I agree that this is a real and important phenomena in dining, but I come to a different conclusion. Although my conception of food surely factors into my enjoyment, I view this as a failing on my part, not on the part of the dish. As a lover of gustatory pleasure, I aspire to overcome the contaminating effects of my biases, and not let them detract from my enjoyment of anything delicious. I don't want to choose what to eat because of a superior advertising campaign or better brand image.

Whether I choose not to eat something for reasons such as environmental concerns, personal health, culinary philosophy, it's not groovy enough, etc. etc., is a separate issue, but I disagree with the concept of "something cunningly manipulated to 'fool the diner' into thinking that it's good". If it tastes good, then, dammit, it tastes good. Don't let your prefrontal cortex fool you otherwise.

Eating or dining out or whatever is a multi-sensical experience that goes beyond just sitting down, or standing up or eating in the car or in front of the TV and quickly scarfing down something to satiate oneself.

one cannot eliminate the prefrontal cortex response or the fact that you are enjoying food in a quiet cafe with your new wife on your honeymoon, or having a family meal with your WHOLE family for the first time in 15 years or...it is not just the TASTE of the food that allows you to determine whether this was a positive experience or the food was good or whatever...it is your mood, the people around you, the atmosphere, you mind frame or expectations going in...etc..

the best meal of my life might not have registered as high in a blind test measuring my brain waves, but when you take in account my expectations, my friends surrounding me, the wine flowing....it was a great and memorable meal...

but this gets away from mr rocks first point...

[morela]

What if it was KRAFT "REAL" mayo, rather than Miracle Whip?

It might not be so bad (I *secretly* like that stuff)...

In general, Miracle Whip is gross (think of it in a tuna sandwich on wonder bread!). If it were imported and could only be eaten it with silver spoons, I'd still think MIRACLE WHIP tastes like rubber cock (I'm guesing...)!

Fine, it just tastes icky. Forget the rubber chicken.

Edited March 10, 2004 by morela (log)

[pastramionrye]

If it were imported and could only be eaten it with silver spoons, I'd still think MIRACLE WHIP tastes like rubber cock (I'm guesing...)!

i hope you mean caulk....rubber cock!!! egullet is getting a bit racey.

[morela]

If it were imported and could only be eaten it with silver spoons, I'd still think MIRACLE WHIP tastes like rubber cock (I'm guesing...)!

i hope you mean caulk....rubber cock!!! egullet is getting a bit racey.

Yeah, yeah

Caulk!

[slbunge]

It all matters, at least it matters to me. And if I have to stand alone, then by golly, I'll stand alone.

No, I'm not militant about it, but it's worth mentioning, discussing and thinking about.

You don't stand alone. I think about this stuff all the time and it affects my choices.

I buy organic fruit when I can though I am not convinced it tastes any better. I would choose artisinal bread from a local baker rather than par-baked bread from LaBrea (see today's thread about NYT article) without attempting to evaluate whose tastes better. I admit to slightly cringing when Jaymes included the dreaded garlic salt in her salsa recipe (what about fresh, organic, fair-trade garlic). I have deliberately supressed memories of meals that tasted fine but service was horrible.

As far as food is concerned, both taste and emotion play strongly into my enjoyment. Much of that emotion is based on raw material, preparation, presentation, service meeting my expectations.

[JennyUptown]

Randomly...

I am eating a McDonald's quarter-pounder with cheese and lots of ketchup right now. I know it is neither good nor good for me, but man...it sure tastes fine. It was the only thing my recently appetite-lacking self wanted so for now, I couldn't give a damn about anything else.

[mags]

Isn't the point about the perception of it all?

The Miracle Whip dish was good UNTIL he knew it was Miracle Whip.

The dish with margarine might taste fine, the difference might even be imperceptible to the tounge, but once you know it is margarine and not butter, doesn't that change the perception of the dish and then its taste (which is all really perception anyway)?

Well, I think there are two ways you can go with the discovery (of Miracle Whip in your casserole, of a well-trained monkey in your bed, etc.) One is that you can allow it to change your perception of the experience: "Oh gosh, in my view of the world Miracle Whip/monkey-sex is loathesome and disgusting, and my view of the world is absolute, infallible, and unchanging, therefore I did NOT in fact enjoy this experience. Nope nope nope."

The other way is to allow the experience to function as a wake-up call, a suggestion that perhaps your view of the world is NOT infallible and perhaps should NOT be unchanging. That conversation might go like this: "Well well well, I guess there are more things in heaven and on earth, Hubert, than are dreamt of in your philosopy." In other words, you can allow the experience to expand your perception of yourself, and your capacity to enjoy things you had previously categorized as unenjoyable.

Personally, I get a major bang out of being happily surprised and having my (many) snobberies successfully challenged.