Interesting Links for 14-05-2013

[andrewducker]

• Engineering the $325,000 In-Vitro Burger
  (tags: thefuture technology food )
• Childcare in the UK: the tightest and most expensive?
  (tags: childcare uk )
• There are no alpha-wolves in the wild.
  (tags: behaviour wolves )
• Wine tasting is bullshit. Here's why.
  (tags: wine alcohol )
• Tom Baker vs Ray Harryhausen: Drink!
  (tags: tombaker alcohol )

Comments

[nancylebov]

I've never been into wine, though it does seem to me that some have more complex flavors than others.

I still believe I can taste the difference between at least some dark chocolates.

[ashfae]

I can absolutely taste the difference between dark chocolates.

[alitheapipkin]

Me too.

[philmophlegm]

Me three.

As for wine and wine critics, well I don't touch the stuff, but one of my best friends is a director of the Wines and Spirits Education Trust and an MW (Master of Wine). Whisky isn't his specialism (wine is, especially saki), but we once tried a single malt blind taste test. He identified both the distillery and the age. (And that's without us actually giving him a list to choose from.) I'm convinced that his palate is that good.

It may well be that there are wine critics out there talking bollocks (in fact I've never heard my friend talk in the bollockese that wine critics always do on the telly), but I'm pretty sure he's not one of them.

[ashfae]

I'll believe that of whisky; I'm not a whisky drinker either, but I went to a taste test of that and could tell broad differences despite knowing nothing. I'm willing to believe there's differences in wine too, but there I can't taste any of 'em.

My dad read an article recently that summed it all up as "Yes, a few people can tell the differences to an extremely fine-tuned level. But most can't, so why act as though it's so terribly important?"

[soon_lee]

Winetasting isn't complete bullshit, but it is nowhere as fine-grained as some people claim. IMO, the 100 point scoring system is rubbish: no-one can consistently assess to that sort of scale given the subjectivity (and differing environmental factors) that is part of every tasting. A useful analogy is movie rating: you try rating the same movie on a 100 point system a few months apart and see if you come up with the same number.

I can have a decent go at consistently rating a wine on the five star system, less so on the 20 point system, but I do not delude myself that I can do it on a 100 point grading system in any meaningful fashion.

In research, a lot of effort is made to try to remove confounding factors (tasting in a green/red light booth, isolated from other tasters, wines presented in black glasses so no visual cues influence assessments) and even so, the number of tasters must be high enough so that signal can be detected from the noise from variation (statistics involved) between tasters.

[naath]

I can taste the difference between *some* wines too; but not all of them.

I find it odd the way that article seems to basically have a thesis of "all wine tastes the same" - it clearly doesn't (for one thing, some of it tastes like vinegar). However the variation in wine-taste isn't as large as "professional wine tasters" make out, nor is it obviously or reliably the case that more expensive wine tastes better.

[ashfae]

All wine does taste the same to me, but I wouldn't hold myself up as a standard in anything where alcohol is involved. Still, thought I'd mention. I can barely taste a difference between red and white, but that's it.

[naath]

Yeah, I guess it's a familiarity thing? All beer tastes the same to me (bad)... but I'd expect that people who *make a living* reviewing/tasting wine would not be the people who can't taste the difference between wines really.

[ashfae]

Agreed!