3 ms·

Another data point: I once threw a party, to which people had to bring a wine, priced between $10 and $15. On arrival, each wine was placed in a numbered conta

by femto 13y ago

Another data point: I once threw a party, to which people had to bring a wine, priced between $10 and $15. On arrival, each wine was placed in a numbered container, so the identity of each wine was unknown, and attendees were given a score sheet. My contribution was a $5/bottle and $30/bottle wildcard. The $5 wildcard came out top. I also had a "slop bucket", into which all the dregs from the bottles went. The slop bucket was served up and came middle, of the pack, next to the $30 bottle. The bottom wine was a truly dreadful, dirt cheap cask wine that someone had brought and decanted into a bottle for a joke. At the end of the night, the scores and identities were revealed. Interestingly, some people began to revise their opinions, saying how the expensive wine was good, but they "weren't quite sure", so down rated it. The other party trick that night was trying to distinguish between red and white wine whilst blindfolded and holding one's nose. Apart from one person, the results were more or less random.

EvanKelly 13y ago
The holding the nose experiment isn't surprising at all. It's a common children's technique for eating 'gross' healthy things and not tasting them. This led to my 4th grade science fair project which was blind taste testing of Jelly Bellies (Coffee, Strawberry, Licorice, and Buttery Popcorn). I can't remember the results perfectly, but in general, people were pretty worthless at telling them apart without their nose.
meepmorp 13y ago
> The other party trick that night was trying to distinguish between red and white wine whilst blindfolded and holding one's nose. Apart from one person, the results were more or less random Not surprising, given that the sense of smell is a significant part of our experience of taste.
derefr 13y ago
> saying how the expensive wine was good, but they "weren't quite sure", so down rated it This actually seems perfectly valid to me. One of the universal qualities of "expensive-tasting" things is that their tastes are usually complex--it takes a while to work through exactly what makes them good. They're meant to also be good in the "food" sense, yes, but more than anything, they're supposed to be art--of the kind you would stand in a gallery analyzing, trying to figure out how the time and place of its creation influenced its style, etc. With no training, you'll usually ignore flavor entirely, and just go for the wine that has the most sugar and a decent amount of alcohol. It might not actually be the one you most prefer in the moment (though it certainly could be)--but when you're asked for a rating, it's the one you can justify, and our post-hoc justifications for preferences frequently overwrite our (weaker) memories of experiential preferences.
- ryandvm 13y ago
  What a load of crap. If you need proper training to tell if something is "good" then you're not detecting goodness at all. All you're doing is engaging in pattern matching with a bunch of other pretentious assholes.
prawn 13y ago
"The $5 wildcard came out top." Hope everyone who liked it stocked up. But is this a data point against "wine tasting" (supporting that wine tasting is bullshit) or just saying that price isn't necessarily an indicator of preference? I like some cheap and cheerful restaurants more than celebrity chef restaurants in big brand hotel lobbies. "I also had a "slop bucket", into which all the dregs from the bottles went. The slop bucket was served up and came middle, of the pack, next to the $30 bottle." You don't mention what sort of people were at the party, but perhaps they just like an even blend? "Interestingly, some people began to revise their opinions, saying how the expensive wine was good, but they "weren't quite sure", so down rated it." I think a lot of that comes down to human nature and you would find equivalent comments and tests with all sorts of product categories including other beverages, quality of fabric/fashion, speaker systems, etc.

by femto 13y ago

EvanKelly 13y ago

The holding the nose experiment isn't surprising at all. It's a common children's technique for eating 'gross' healthy things and not tasting them. This led to my 4th grade science fair project which was blind taste testing of Jelly Bellies (Coffee, Strawberry, Licorice, and Buttery Popcorn). I can't remember the results perfectly, but in general, people were pretty worthless at telling them apart without their nose.

meepmorp 13y ago

> The other party trick that night was trying to distinguish between red and white wine whilst blindfolded and holding one's nose. Apart from one person, the results were more or less random Not surprising, given that the sense of smell is a significant part of our experience of taste.

derefr 13y ago

> saying how the expensive wine was good, but they "weren't quite sure", so down rated it This actually seems perfectly valid to me. One of the universal qualities of "expensive-tasting" things is that their tastes are usually complex--it takes a while to work through exactly what makes them good. They're meant to also be good in the "food" sense, yes, but more than anything, they're supposed to be art--of the kind you would stand in a gallery analyzing, trying to figure out how the time and place of its creation influenced its style, etc. With no training, you'll usually ignore flavor entirely, and just go for the wine that has the most sugar and a decent amount of alcohol. It might not actually be the one you most prefer in the moment (though it certainly could be)--but when you're asked for a rating, it's the one you can justify, and our post-hoc justifications for preferences frequently overwrite our (weaker) memories of experiential preferences.

ryandvm 13y ago
What a load of crap. If you need proper training to tell if something is "good" then you're not detecting goodness at all. All you're doing is engaging in pattern matching with a bunch of other pretentious assholes.

prawn 13y ago

"The $5 wildcard came out top." Hope everyone who liked it stocked up. But is this a data point against "wine tasting" (supporting that wine tasting is bullshit) or just saying that price isn't necessarily an indicator of preference? I like some cheap and cheerful restaurants more than celebrity chef restaurants in big brand hotel lobbies. "I also had a "slop bucket", into which all the dregs from the bottles went. The slop bucket was served up and came middle, of the pack, next to the $30 bottle." You don't mention what sort of people were at the party, but perhaps they just like an even blend? "Interestingly, some people began to revise their opinions, saying how the expensive wine was good, but they "weren't quite sure", so down rated it." I think a lot of that comes down to human nature and you would find equivalent comments and tests with all sorts of product categories including other beverages, quality of fabric/fashion, speaker systems, etc.