3 ms·

"doesn't take long to learn the difference between a good and bad wine." If you have to teach people to distinguish good and bad isn't that an admission that t

by Steko 13y ago

"doesn't take long to learn the difference between a good and bad wine." If you have to teach people to distinguish good and bad isn't that an admission that the whole thing is bullshit?

mike_herrera 13y ago
Not in the slightest. As a counter-example, challenging food and music comes to mind.
- pessimizer 13y ago
  How are those counter-examples?
  - firebones 13y ago
    In the same way that being able to tell the difference between good and bad code takes time for a novice. Just because you have to learn to distinguish what makes some code more easily understood, easier to maintain, more robust, etc., doesn't make the notion of telling good from bad a bogus pursuit.
    - Steko 13y ago
      The code analogy is silly. With wine (or food) we're talking about a fundamental sense we all have. Everyone can eat and drink and either the stuff tastes good to people or it doesn't. And that's the point of the food/drink to begin with. The point of code is not generally to appeal to novices' innate sense of code aesthetics. Chef: You stupid amateurs could never appreciate my noodles! Tampopo: But people who eat noodles are all amateurs. So why make noodles amateurs can't appreciate?
  - mike_herrera 13y ago
    Consumable subjective experiences (fine art, wine, food, music) are not always naturally pleasing on the first-go. Learning of the nuances, and being taught to identify the existence/lack of those nuances, aid in development of an opinion. While I happen to agree that people should just "buy what they like," the path to forming an opinion is usually a guided one.
  - kibibu 13y ago
    I do not watch American Football. I understand the overall rules of the game, and I don't particularly enjoy it. However, I have not immersed myself in the game enough to be able to understand what is a good play and what is a great play. I don't understand the lingo, I don't understand the strategy and I don't understand the tactics. Am I in a position to judge then whether one player (or game) is better than another? I don't believe I am. Substitute with chess if you like. A chess aficionado may find a lot of pleasurable excitement in a move that an amateur may see as pointless. There are also concepts you've heard of such as a "musician's musician" or a "comedian's comedian" - wherein deep knowledge of the craft gives a different appreciation of the experience.
sesqu 13y ago
No.

by Steko 13y ago

"doesn't take long to learn the difference between a good and bad wine." If you have to teach people to distinguish good and bad isn't that an admission that the whole thing is bullshit?

mike_herrera 13y ago

Not in the slightest. As a counter-example, challenging food and music comes to mind.

pessimizer 13y ago
How are those counter-examples?
- firebones 13y ago
  In the same way that being able to tell the difference between good and bad code takes time for a novice. Just because you have to learn to distinguish what makes some code more easily understood, easier to maintain, more robust, etc., doesn't make the notion of telling good from bad a bogus pursuit.
  - Steko 13y ago
    The code analogy is silly. With wine (or food) we're talking about a fundamental sense we all have. Everyone can eat and drink and either the stuff tastes good to people or it doesn't. And that's the point of the food/drink to begin with. The point of code is not generally to appeal to novices' innate sense of code aesthetics. Chef: You stupid amateurs could never appreciate my noodles! Tampopo: But people who eat noodles are all amateurs. So why make noodles amateurs can't appreciate?
- mike_herrera 13y ago
  Consumable subjective experiences (fine art, wine, food, music) are not always naturally pleasing on the first-go. Learning of the nuances, and being taught to identify the existence/lack of those nuances, aid in development of an opinion. While I happen to agree that people should just "buy what they like," the path to forming an opinion is usually a guided one.
- kibibu 13y ago
  I do not watch American Football. I understand the overall rules of the game, and I don't particularly enjoy it. However, I have not immersed myself in the game enough to be able to understand what is a good play and what is a great play. I don't understand the lingo, I don't understand the strategy and I don't understand the tactics. Am I in a position to judge then whether one player (or game) is better than another? I don't believe I am. Substitute with chess if you like. A chess aficionado may find a lot of pleasurable excitement in a move that an amateur may see as pointless. There are also concepts you've heard of such as a "musician's musician" or a "comedian's comedian" - wherein deep knowledge of the craft gives a different appreciation of the experience.

sesqu 13y ago

No.