We've had (parts of) this discussion here before, but this is worth a
read. Especially interested in Charles' response to this one.
Udhay
-------- Original Message --------
http://io9.com/wine-tasting-is-bullshit-heres-why-496098276
The human palate is arguably the weakest of the five traditional
senses<http://io9.com/5926643/10-fundamental-limits-to-human-perception-++-and-how-they-shape-your-world>.
This begs an important question regarding wine tasting: is it bullshit, or
is it complete and utter bullshit?
There are no two ways about it: the bullshit is strong with wine. Wine
tasting. Wine rating. Wine reviews. Wine descriptions. They're all related.
And they're all egregious offenders, from a bullshit standpoint.
*Exhibit A: Wine experts contradict themselves. Constantly.*
Statistician and wine-lover Robert Hodgson recently analyzed a series of
wine competitions in California, after "wondering how wines, such as his
own, [could] win a gold medal at one competition, and 'end up in the
pooper'<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703683804574533840282653628.html>
at
others." In one study, Hodgson presented blindfolded wine experts with the
same wine three times in succession. Incredibly, the judges' ratings
typically varied by ±4 points on a standard ratings scale running from 80
to 100. Via the *Wall Street Journal*:
A wine rated 91 on one tasting would often be rated an 87 or 95 on the
next. Some of the judges did much worse, and only about one in 10 regularly
rated the same wine within a range of ±2 points.
Mr. Hodgson also found that the judges whose ratings were most consistent
in any given year landed in the middle of the pack in other years,
suggesting that their consistent performance that year had simply been due
to chance.
It bears repeating that the judges Hodgson surveyed were no ordinary
taste-testers. These were judges at California State Fair wine competition
– the oldest and most prestigious in North America. If you think you can
consistently rate the "quality" of wine, it means two things:
1: No. You can't.
2. Wine-tasting is bullshit.
*Exhibit B: Expert wine critics can't distinguish between red and white
wines*
This one's one of my favorites. In 2001, researcher Frédéric Brochet
invited 57 wine experts to give their opinions on what were ostensibly two
glasses of different
wine<http://web.archive.org/web/20070928231853/http://www.academie-amorim.com/us/laureat_2001/brochet.pdf>:
one red, and one white. In actuality, the two wines were identical, with
one exception: the "red" wine had been dyed with food coloring.
The experts described the "red" wine in language typically reserved for
characterizing reds. They noted its "jamminess," for example, and the
flavors imparted by its "crushed red fruit." Not one of the 57 experts
surveyed noticed that it was, in fact a white wine.
*Exhibit C: We taste with our eyes, not our mouths*
Actually, scratch that. We taste with our eyes, ears, noses, and even our
sense of touch. We taste with our emotions, and our state of mind. This has
been demonstrated time after time after time.
Research out of Cornell University's Food and Brand Lab has shown that people
will rate food as more
enjoyable<http://www.amsciepub.com/doi/abs/10.2466/01.PR0.111.4.228-232>
if
it's consumed in the relaxed atmosphere of a fine dining environment, as
opposed to a noisy fast food restaurant.
A 2006 study, published by the American Association of Wine Economists,
found that most people can't distinguish between paté and dog
food<http://www.wine-economics.org/workingpapers/AAWE_WP36.pdf>
.
A recent *New Yorker*
piece<http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/frontal-cortex/2012/06/wine-taste.html>
describes
a followup to Brochet's 2001 study, wherein he served wine experts a
run-of-the-mill Bordeaux in two different bottles:
One bottle bore the label of a fancy grand cru, the other of an ordinary *vin
de table*. Although they were being served the exact same wine, the experts
gave the bottles nearly opposite descriptions. The grand cru was summarized
as being “agreeable,” “woody,” “complex,” “balanced,” and “rounded,” while
the most popular adjectives for the *vin de table* included “weak,”
“short,” “light,” “flat,” and “faulty.”
*Exhibit D: Wine critics know wine reviews are bullshit*
Here's Joe Power, editor of the popular *Another Wine
Blog<http://www.anotherwineblog.com/archives/11573#.UYpnDStVA-c>
, *in a post titled "Wine Reviews are Bullshit!":
Today, with apologies to messieurs Penn and Teller, I am going to stand up
and shout, “Wine reviews are bullshit!”
If you are wondering if this is going to be some justification of why our
reviews at AWB are just spiffy and everyone else is full of shit, you can
stop wondering; ours are bullshit too. It is just the nature of the beast.
There is no hard science involved in reviewing wine, no real way to
quantify results, no test cases, and certainly no verifiable set of
standards that everyone adheres to. Everyone makes up their own processes
for reviewing from Wine Spectator <http://www.winespectator.com/> to us and
all of the way down to the most recent person who just discovered how easy
it is to set up a blog of their own.
When asked point blank what he thought of the aforementioned results from
Robert Hodgson's study (see Exhibit A) wine-maker Bob Cabral said he was "not
surprised"<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703683804574533840282653628.html>
:
In Mr. Cabral's view, wine ratings are influenced by uncontrolled factors
such as the time of day, the number of hours since the taster last ate and
the other wines in the lineup. He also says critics taste too many wines in
too short a time. As a result, he says, "I would expect a taster's rating
of the same wine to vary by at least three, four, five points from tasting
to tasting."
See? Horseshit.
*Exhibits E – ZZZ: Countless other studies*
In 1996, research published in the *Journal of Experimental
Psychology* concluded
that wine experts cannot reliably identify more than three or four of a
wine's flavor
components<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703683804574533840282653628.html>.
Most wine critics routinely report tasting six or more. The wine review
excerpted in the top image for this post, for example (which is a real
review, by the
way<http://goodgrape.com/index.php/articles/comments/the_exact_reason_people_think_wine_enthusiasts_are_pompous_bores/>
–
somebody *actually* wrote those words about a bottle of wine, in earnest)
lists the following components in the wine's "principle flavor" profile:
"red roses, lavender, geranium, dried hibiscus flowers, cranberry raisins,
currant jelly, mango with skins [*Ed. note: jesus wine-swilling christ –
mango with skins?]*, red plums, cobbler, cinnamon, star anise, blackberry
bramble, whole black peppercorn," *and more than a dozen other flavors that
I refuse to continue listing lest my head implode.*
Fun fact: MIT behavioral economist Coco Krume recently conducted a
meta-analysis of the classifiers used in wine
reviews<http://www.slate.com/articles/life/drink/2011/02/velvety_chocolate_with_a_silky_ruby_finish_pair_with_shellfish.single.html>,
and found that reviewers tend to use "cheap" and "expensive" words
differently. Cheap descriptors are used much more frequently, expensive
ones more sparingly. Krume even demonstrated that it's possible to guess
the price range of a wine based on the words used in its review. "From a
quantitative standpoint," Krume writes, "there are three types of words
more likely to be used for expensive wines":
- Darker words, such as *intense, supple, velvety*, and *smoky*
- *Single flavors such as tobacco or chocolate versus fruity, good,
clean, tasty, juicy for cheap wines*
- *Exclusive-sounding words in place of simple descriptors. For
example, old,
elegant, and cuveerather than pleasing, refreshing, value,and enjoy*
- Additionally, cheap wine is preferentially paired with *chicken *and*
pizza*, while pricey wine goes with *shellfish* and *pork*
Using her scientific metric, Krume goes on to create the most
expensive-sounding wine review ever penned: "*A velvety chocolate texture
and enticingly layered, yet creamy, nose, this wine abounds with focused
cassis and a silky ruby finish. Lush, elegant, and nuanced. Pair with pork
and shellfish." *If that sentence made you yearn for a glass of classy red,
congratulations, there's a very real chance you're a pompous asshole.
*The Exception*
You want an exception to the *wine-tasting is bullshit* mantra? Here it is.
In 2008, a survey comprising more than 6,000 blind tastings found a
positive correlation between price and
enjoyment<http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/handle/37328>
– *for individuals with wine training*. In other words: if you're a wine
expert, there's a chance you'll enjoy more expensive wines more than
cheaper ones. HOWEVER, it bears emphatic mentioning that whether this
suggests more expensive wines are objectively better (which it doesn't) is
irrelevant, because among *amateur* wine drinkers (which, let's face it,
you are), the survey found the opposite, i.e. a *negative* correlation
between price and happiness, “suggesting that individuals on average enjoy
more expensive wines slightly less.” This lead the researchers to conclude
that *"both the prices of wines and wine recommendations by experts may be
poor guides for non-expert wine consumers."**
*
The upshot: screw the experts. Drink what tastes good/whatever you can
afford. Or just have a beer – it's unequivocally better, anyway.
