"Tastes Good" does not equal "Is Good"

[morela]

Do I look yummy?

Squeeze

[Marco_Polo]

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.

Have been struggling to make sense of this thread, but Mags, your post clarifies all.

As a resolution, I'm going to try and be more open-minded and challenge my preconceptions, starting right now. Tracking down Miracle Whip might not be too hard a place to start (on the other hand it could be, considering where I live), but the real problem is, how on earth am I ever gonna find that extraordinary monkey?

[clothier]

my head is starting to hurt trying to figure out who's posts are trying to make a point, and who's posts are just goofing on the others.

that said, I don't like miracle whip. But I've eaten it in stuff, and it's ok. I'm not a big fan of offal, but I've eaten it in stuff, and it was ok.

i hope that clears things up for you all.

[morela]

my head is starting to hurt trying to figure out who's posts are trying to make a point, and who's posts are just goofing on the others.

that said, I don't like miracle whip. But I've eaten it in stuff, and it's ok. I'm not a big fan of offal, but I've eaten it in stuff, and it was ok.

i hope that clears things up for you all.

I'm just goofy. Are you bothered by this? I can stop.

Edited March 10, 2004 by morela (log)

[clothier]

I love goofy.

and I was just being silly.

and I can't stop.

it's genetic.

[morela]

I love goofy.

and I was just being silly.

and I can't stop.

it's genetic.

This is good b/c I either need a drink or heavy endorsement today. It's A MIRACLE WHIPPING at work.

[clothier]

well, you can play on my team anytime.

for whatever that's worth.

[mags]

At the risk of raining on the goof parade -- which I would ordinarily be HAPPY to join, perhaps while wearing baggy clown pants and a nose that goes "beep beep" -- something occurred to me in reading over this thread. Are we maybe talking about the difference between enjoying something ("it's good") and approving of oneself for enjoying it?

I used to have a boss with a weird eating disorder -- they've now coined a name for it, which I forget, has something to do with being afraid of food and being convinced that this, that, and the other thing will kill you dead/make you fat/prevent you from joining the Society of the Pure and Good. Anyway, he had an enormous sweet tooth, but clearly disapproved violently of said sweet tooth. So he'd sit there in his office, eating chocolates, moaning and mmmm-ing with every nibble and lick...while simultaneously saying -- out loud -- "Oh, this stuff is so terrible. Loaded with fat. And you know, it's just drenched with high-fructose corn syrup and these scary preservatives...BH12, lycanthropic lyctopane..what the hell are those? Mag, you want some? You sure? They're really good."

So he loved the chocolate but he didn't like himself for loving it. And in that way, I guess, the chocolate was not a "good" experience for him. Does this make sense?

[clothier]

so it was you that stole my pants!!

[Miguelito]

It may be worth considering whether the hormone-free salmon, the fair-trade garlic and the farmhouse mayo might require more resources to produce than their less "authentic" (and generally less expensive) substitutes. If so, and if the substitute goods create the same sensory satisfaction (a big, big if), aren't we better off consuming the less "authentic" substitute instead of the more expensive (and resource-hungry) "genuine" article? One might argue that we will have had the same sensory experience, but will be left with some additional resources to use as we wish (e.g., feeding the hungry). That might be something to feel good about.

[clothier]

again, my head hurts.

[FoodZealot]

[snip]

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.”

If I'm understanding his original point, DonRocks is saying there are other considerations to food being "good" that just tasting good. That's quite reasonable in the abstract, but I don't agree with how it's been applied in the examples given thus far. Some may find this somewhat related thread about taste to be worth reading.

[DonRocks]

Why McDonald's Fries Taste So Good

[clothier]

and so?

[morela]

Why McDonald's Fries Taste So Good

I love how it's CIENTISTS in graph 10

[Katherine]

I'm not a big fan of offal, but I've eaten it in stuff, and it was ok.

My daughter and I were sitting in a Brazilian buffet. Picking some small round nuggets out of a brown gravy, she said, "This is really good. What is it?"

"Chicken hearts," I said.

A shadow crossed her face as she realized how far what she was eating had pushed her into the unknown. She pushed it away, unable to savor another bite.

[clothier]

i wasn't around here then, but I'm sure there is at least a thread or two devoted to "that book".

So rather than re-hash, I'll just let it go.

I know, it was so adult of me, wasn't it?

[Joe H]

There's only one problem with the article about McDonald's fries: it's inaccurate. The taste of their french fries changed forever in 1966 when they stopped using fresh potatoes AND stopped using a mixture that included 70% animal fat. Additionally the russet potatoes he mentioned we not only sliced in house but the skin was left on, they were blanched and then hung in a basket overnight. Even before this happened the potatoes were stored in a dark room for up to two weeks. The 93% beef tallow mixture may have influenced taste in 1990 but the pre 1990 potatoes tasted NOTHING like the pre 1966 french fries which James Beard and the others raved about. Those potatoes were still available at McDonald's #1 in Des Plaines (that's Ray Kroc McDonald's #1 not the original in San Bernadino) until about 1981 along with their original shakes and fresh meat on their burgers. This was kpt as sort of a museum store with the original food until then. (Today, Downey, CA is their museum store including a building with numerous photographs and the actual recipe for the potatoes along with a series of photos for how they were made.)

Anyway, there is ONE PLACE ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH WHERE YOU CAN STILL GET MCDONALD'S ORIGINAL FRENCH FRIES: Dick's Drive In in Spokane, Washington. This is NOT connected to the Seattle Dick's. Simply, in the late 1950's, Dick's owner was turned down for a McD franchise, went to southern CA for a month where he worked in a McD, returned to Spokane and opened his own fast food restaurant which today is the second highest grossing independent fast food restaurant in America. USA Today did a big feature on it a number of years ago. I've been to it three times and the shakes and the fries are identical but not the hamburgers which he told me changed for some reason. But he freely admits that they are the same french fries and laughs that the McDonald's down the street from him does a fraction of his business.

[bergerka]

Ok, Don, I THINK I understand where you're coming from here - and damn you, damn you for making my brain work after a numbing workday and a hard physical workout. Are you saying that the ideal in eating is to strive for the freshest and best ingredients to the exclusion, as much as possible, of "adulterated" ingredients (which is to say, mass-produced products and/or products containing large amounts of ingredients that don't really exist in nature, like Miracle Whip, Coca-cola, Quarter Pounders or Twinkies?), as a means of enjoying both the physical sensation of good taste (as in, something that tastes good, not, say, a dress by Oscar de la Renta) and the PERCEPTION of good taste (because one is experiencing only the individual flavors and the combination of flavors of the pure ingredients, untouched by bizarre chemicals and other byproducts of mass-production)?

If so (good lord, that was a Faulkner-length sentence, and damn near as convoluted), I doubt there are too many who would disagree with you here. I, for one, happen to think that factory-type production of food in any form contributes to the overall dumbing-down and genericizing (is that a word?) of American "cuisine," such as it is. Call it the "McDonaldization" of America, if you like. On the one hand, it's predictable, you can pull into any McDonald's in the country (or the world!) and pretty much know what that burger is going to taste like (although you can get beer in the ones in other countries, which is kind of cool). On the other hand...it's predictable. You know what it's going to taste like.

HOWEVER...

if you're making an informed decision (basically, unless you live in a cave, you know that Quarter Pounder with cheese - mm - cheese - and fries is crap on a plate), wherein lies the problem? Is the company evil for producing it in the first place? (this is debatable. I'm not going to go to bat for McDonald's here, because I agree with some of their policies and disagree with a great many). Are you less of a decent human being for buying, consuming, and even enjoying it?

I think not.

I eat a great deal of very good food in my life (living with slkinsey, I kinda can't help it, because he cooks like a god). To a large extent, I go out of my way to find quality products; for example, I will not buy meat or poultry in a grocery store (not for me, not for my ferrety babies) unless it is free-range, organic, etc., for reasons of both my conscience and because I have no faith in either the government's or big business' commitment to keeping my meat safe.

But damn it, sometimes I just want that $#@%%@! Quarter Pounder (or, worse, Nachos Bell Grande), and that's all there is to it. On the (rare) occasions this happens, I don't particularly fight it and I don't agonize over it while I eat it. I eat it, remember why I do it rarely (delicious while being devoured, but I feel kinda icky afterward), and go on with my day.

If I absolutely HAD to justify it, well - I know just about as much of where the meat in that Quarter Pounder came from as I do the beef in the hamburgers at the diner down the street, don't I? As I mentioned in the Chipotle thread, I know more about the meat at Chipotle than I do the meat at the taco truck down the street - so why would it make me a worse person to eat at Chipotle than at the taco truck? Yes, both the diner and the taco truck are individually-run businesses, rather than fast-food conglomerates, but the prices are comparable, the product is (roughly!) comparable (they both taste good and satisfy specific cravings, although obviously the hamburger at the diner is WAY better than a Quarter Pounder, in general), and I know far less about how that diner and that taco truck treats employees than I do about how McDonald's and Chipotle treat them...so I can't even make myself feel guilty that way.

This makes no sense, I'm sure.

I mentioned this in PM to you, Don, but where does something like In-n-Out Burger fit into this paradigm? They are a fast-food chain with a commitment to quality product and decent treatment of employees (and a relentless refusal to overexpand, which means we don't have them in NYC, damn it)...and the food tastes good too. so because I get it at a drive-through window, am I supposed to feel bad about it?

Did I get it? Am I having crack for lunch again? You tell me.

K

Edited to add that due to an error in literacy, I didn't realize I was bumping a two-month old thread. *blush*

Edited May 13, 2004 by bergerka (log)

[Pan]

Edited to add that due to an error in literacy, I didn't realize I was bumping a two-month old thread. *blush*

K, isn't it wonderful that all old threads can be made new again?

[DonRocks]

Are you saying that the ideal in eating is to strive for the freshest and best ingredients to the exclusion, as much as possible, of "adulterated" ingredients (which is to say, mass-produced products and/or products containing large amounts of ingredients that don't really exist in nature, like Miracle Whip, Coca-cola, Quarter Pounders or Twinkies?), as a means of enjoying both the physical sensation of good taste (as in, something that tastes good, not, say, a dress by Oscar de la Renta) and the PERCEPTION of good taste (because one is experiencing only the individual flavors and the combination of flavors of the pure ingredients, untouched by bizarre chemicals and other byproducts of mass-production)?

Yes!

HOWEVER... if you're making an informed decision (basically, unless you live in a cave, you know that Quarter Pounder with cheese - mm - cheese - and fries is crap on a plate), wherein lies the problem? 

The problem lies in you glossing over the "crap on the plate" statement. If you genuinely thought you were being served a piece of crap, and I mean a literal piece of crap, you would not eat it.

Is the company evil for producing it in the first place? (this is debatable.  I'm not going to go to bat for McDonald's here, because I agree with some of their policies and disagree with a great many).

I'm not sure I buy into the term "evil" to describe McDonald's, but I'll use "uncaring about the health and welfare of its customers" instead. Is apathy evil?

Are you less of a decent human being for buying, consuming, and even enjoying it? 

No, there are plenty of decent human beings who buy, consume and enjoy Quarter Pounders with Cheese. Perhaps I'd describe them as being less thoughtful about the short- and long-term implications of ordering that sandwich, and maybe not thinking terribly globally in scope at that moment; they're just hungry and want something cheap and tasty, and it's an easy way out (as is throwing the wrapper out the car window and not exercising an hour later and ignoring the small farmer who didn't just sell you his product and subsidizing the flavorists who are paid big money to create savory flavors in a chemical lab).

It's a choice, a choice I make sometimes, but I am aware that every time I make that choice, I create a small amount of harm to this world.

If I absolutely HAD to justify it, well - I know just about as much of where the meat in that Quarter Pounder came from as I do the beef in the hamburgers at the diner down the street, don't I?  As I mentioned in the Chipotle thread, I know more about the meat at Chipotle than I do the meat at the taco truck down the street - so why would it make me a worse person to eat at Chipotle than at the taco truck? 

It doesn't make you a bad person.

I mentioned this in PM to you, Don, but where does something like In-n-Out Burger fit into this paradigm?  They are a fast-food chain with a commitment to quality product and decent treatment of employees (and a relentless refusal to overexpand, which means we don't have them in NYC, damn it)...and the food tastes good too.  so because I get it at a drive-through window, am I supposed to feel bad about it?

Never having been to In-and-Out, from all I've heard about it, it's the equivalent of a really good version of that taco truck (if you'll allow me to stretch the parallel a bit). In-and-Out sounds like it tastes good, and it really is good. Everything is in shades of gray (we could discuss styrofoam containers, wages and health benefits paid to their employees, etc. etc. ad nauseum), but this sounds like a fine, non-snobby example of the original proposition I made months ago.

Did I get it?  Am I having crack for lunch again?  You tell me.

I think you get it just as well as I do!

Cheers,

Rocks.

[Pickles]

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.

Here's my comment. I disagree. I could care less if a souffle contains rat turds, old socks and ostrich snot. If it's delicious, it's delicious. Why dissect the crap outta things? By the way, I like Miracle Whip, too. Like most things in food, it has its place. If it turns up as an ingredient in a fantastic, ambrosial dish that has... foie gras.. or some other hoity-toity foodstuff in it...who gives a sh*t? I'll take your portion.

[bergerka]

well, actually, you can keep the rat turds, old socks and ostrich snot soufflé. I gotta draw the line SOMEWHERE.

K

[Pickles]

well, actually, you can keep the rat turds, old socks and ostrich snot soufflé. I gotta draw the line SOMEWHERE.

K

"TRY it....you'll LIKE it..." You can always spit it out.

[babyluck]

HE New Jersey Turnpike runs through the heart of the flavor industry, an industrial corridor dotted with refineries and chemical plants. International Flavors & Fragrances (IFF), the world's largest flavor company, has a manufacturing facility off Exit 8A in Dayton, New Jersey; Givaudan, the world's second-largest flavor company, has a plant in East Hanover. Haarmann & Reimer, the largest German flavor company, has a plant in Teterboro, as does Takasago, the largest Japanese flavor company. Flavor Dynamics has a plant in South Plainfield; Frutarom is in North Bergen; Elan Chemical is in Newark. Dozens of companies manufacture flavors in the corridor between Teaneck and South Brunswick. Altogether the area produces about two thirds of the flavor additives sold in the United States.

I find this thread interesting, but especially because it led me to this passage. I used to work next door to a lab where they created, among other things, fragrance compounds for children's shampoo. I would walk around every day smelling one odor after another that reminded me of something from my childhood and going crazy trying to identify it. "Erasers-no, Silly Putty, those scented markers, Grape Bubbalicious..." I smelled Circus Peanuts every day for 6 months straight. Now I drive down the Turnpike every day and I find that I smell the same thing in the same place day after day but don't know what factory may be producing it. When you get into Newark going south, there is a wonderful smell of new leather, then --wham!--what must be Elan--a different mix every day, some savory, some sweet, some that make me nostalgic and some that make me sick. I am so interested in finding out where these smells are coming from that I am considering starting a blog entitled "What I Smell on the Way to Work & Back" with a map depicting each odor's focal point. It also brings to mind a quote from a friend of a friend about growing up in Edison, one of my favorite quotes of all time:

"Sometimes my backyard smells like raw sewage, but sometimes it smells like strawberry Jell-O. And I like strawberry Jell-O."

I do have a minor point to make in the real discussion going on here, and this quote from the same article hints at it:

In an age when delicate aromas and microwave ovens do not easily co-exist, the job of the flavorist is to conjure illusions about processed food and, in the words of one flavor company's literature, to ensure "consumer likeability."

It's the same reason I never went much for hard drugs. I had a feeling that by artificially ramping up my emotions one way or the other, I would end up neurologically stunted and less able to form natural emotional responses. A small and unscientific sampling of my friends in their post-college years seems to prove that I was right. I feel the same way about flavor enhancers. Forget about whether the foods that contain them are eco-friendly, carcinogenic, or just plain evil. What I wonder is, does eating them on a regular basis reduce your ability to enjoy a delicate-tasting dish, say a piece of fish with just lemon or sushi without the wasabi? It seems inevitable that it would.

I'm sort of getting back to Don's original question, and it's something I've been asking myself lately, too. When I don't like something that's revered by the gourmets of the world, I have to ask myself if it's my own peculiar and immutable preference, or if my taste buds have to "grow up," as Mom always used to say. Even though my parents fed me healthy, mostly home-grown food and strictly controlled foods from other sources, I really think I naturally preferred strong, pure artificial flavors to complex, organic ones, probably from age 5-20. I would have traded my Five-Alive juice boxes for Sssips! if anyone had been dumb enough to trade with me. Well, when I was 20 my parents let me drink Juicy Juice...

It started to become clear to me through a conversation w/ GordonCooks about Love My Goat. I was trying to convince him that it was great, but hadn't had it myself in a while, and when I tasted it again it tasted sweet and simplistic where before it tasted juicy and fresh. Hey, Mom, my taste buds are finally growing up! But what I'm concentrating on now is how to guide the process so that I get the most out of life and a greater appreciation for subtle tastes. A big part of that for me is cutting down on flavor-enhanced foods, at least ones designed in a lab.