4 ms·

You seem to be describing a way to lie to yourself about the taste.

mason55 3y ago
The brain isn't a perfect machine - you can't just isolate the chemical reaction that your tastebuds have and say that anything else is lying to yourself about taste. Breathing through your nose is lying to yourself about the taste too but if you hold your nose while you eat then you won't taste anything.
taeric 3y ago
I mean, sorta? This would be like claiming that folks that enjoy a long bike ride are finding a way to lie about difficult physical tasks. (Or marathon runners, or any other difficult thing.) That is, I'm pointing out that you can use unique tastes to imprint experiences. And if you do that, it is not surprising that you can grow to like the taste, as it is no longer an isolated thing, but a physical reminder of other things.
- nitwit005 3y ago
  If you work really hard at it, perhaps you can convince yourself of anything. But, notice I used the word work there. Those marathon runners are putting in an active effort to motivate themselves. No one wants to have to put effort into convincing themselves they're enjoying good wine with their experience.
  - taeric 3y ago
    Maybe. Some people really want to imprint moments in time. Incorporating a distinct taste is a great way to help in that. Really, the more senses you can fire all together and notice, the more I would think you could imprint a moment.
satvikpendem 3y ago
Taste itself is a deception. Studies have shown that if you dye a steak blue, it will taste subjectively worse to the eater than if it were a normal color, even though the taste should be chemically identical. With taste tests of identical foods, where one is mentioned to be a higher price than the other, the person eating it will prefer the "taste" of the more expensive one.
peeters 3y ago
That "taste" as popularly defined is already a multi-sensory experience probably isn't controversial to you. Most would agree that plugging your nose alters your tasting experience of a food. I fail to see why other sensory organs like ears and eyes are not fair game to include in the experience. Weak beer tastes better on a hot patio. Sipping brandy tastes better next to a crackling fire.
Baeocystin 3y ago
I think of it more as paying closer attention to certain facets of the experience, and less to others. It's not a lie- those elements are present, to greater or lesser degrees. Nothing is being spun from whole cloth.
malermeister 3y ago
There's no such thing as objective taste. There's only subjective perception of taste.

The brain isn't a perfect machine - you can't just isolate the chemical reaction that your tastebuds have and say that anything else is lying to yourself about taste. Breathing through your nose is lying to yourself about the taste too but if you hold your nose while you eat then you won't taste anything.

taeric 3y ago

I mean, sorta? This would be like claiming that folks that enjoy a long bike ride are finding a way to lie about difficult physical tasks. (Or marathon runners, or any other difficult thing.) That is, I'm pointing out that you can use unique tastes to imprint experiences. And if you do that, it is not surprising that you can grow to like the taste, as it is no longer an isolated thing, but a physical reminder of other things.

nitwit005 3y ago
If you work really hard at it, perhaps you can convince yourself of anything. But, notice I used the word work there. Those marathon runners are putting in an active effort to motivate themselves. No one wants to have to put effort into convincing themselves they're enjoying good wine with their experience.
- taeric 3y ago
  Maybe. Some people really want to imprint moments in time. Incorporating a distinct taste is a great way to help in that. Really, the more senses you can fire all together and notice, the more I would think you could imprint a moment.

satvikpendem 3y ago

Taste itself is a deception. Studies have shown that if you dye a steak blue, it will taste subjectively worse to the eater than if it were a normal color, even though the taste should be chemically identical. With taste tests of identical foods, where one is mentioned to be a higher price than the other, the person eating it will prefer the "taste" of the more expensive one.

peeters 3y ago

That "taste" as popularly defined is already a multi-sensory experience probably isn't controversial to you. Most would agree that plugging your nose alters your tasting experience of a food. I fail to see why other sensory organs like ears and eyes are not fair game to include in the experience. Weak beer tastes better on a hot patio. Sipping brandy tastes better next to a crackling fire.

Baeocystin 3y ago

I think of it more as paying closer attention to certain facets of the experience, and less to others. It's not a lie- those elements are present, to greater or lesser degrees. Nothing is being spun from whole cloth.

malermeister 3y ago

There's no such thing as objective taste. There's only subjective perception of taste.