[Scott[_6_]]

On Monday, April 14, 2014 12:47:31 PM UTC-7, Walt wrote:
On 4/12/2014 4:30 PM, Scott wrote:
=20
=20
=20
"Wine snobs can barely distinguish red from white when they're blindfol=
ded."
=20
=20
=20
Aside from being total nonsense there is no connection. =20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
Um... not "total nonsense" but the result of a 2001 experiment at the
=20
University of Bordeaux:
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
"The perceptual ambiguity of wine helps explain why contextual
=20
influences--say, the look of a label, or the price tag on the bottle--can
=20
profoundly influence expert judgment. This was nicely demonstrated in a
=20
mischievous 2001 experiment led by Fr=E9d=E9ric Brochet at the University=
of
=20
Bordeaux. In one test, Brochet included fifty-four wine experts and
=20
asked them to give their impressions of what looked like two glasses of
=20
red and white wine. The wines were actually the same white wine, one of
=20
which had been tinted red with food coloring. But that didn't stop the
=20
experts from describing the "red" wine in language typically used to
=20
describe red wines. One expert said that it was "jammy," while another
=20
enjoyed its "crushed red fruit."
=20
=20
=20
Another test that Brochet conducted was even more damning. He took a
=20
middling Bordeaux and served it in two different bottles. One bottle
=20
bore the label of a fancy grand cru, the other of an ordinary vin de
=20
table. Although they were being served the exact same wine, the experts
=20
gave the bottles nearly opposite descriptions. The grand cru was
=20
summarized as being "agreeable," "woody," "complex," "balanced," and
=20
"rounded," while the most popular adjectives for the vin de table
=20
included "weak," "short," "light," "flat," and "faulty." "
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
As for the connection to violins and turntables, I'll leave that as an
=20
exercise for the reader.
=20
=20
=20
--=20
=20
//Walt

When blind tests are reduced to parlor tricks to shame people they cease to=
be anything other than a tool to promote an agenda. I remember an interest=
ing and eye opening experience I once had. I went to get a glass of milk in=
the middle of the night. Without looking I poured from a carton of unfilte=
red apple juice and took a big drink. I instantly ran to the sink and spit =
out what i thought was rancid milk. So what does that prove? That we really=
can't tell the difference between rancid milk and unfiltered apple juice b=
y taste alone? That we are fooling ourselves when we think we like apple ju=
ice or dislike rancid milk?=20

Or maybe, just maybe we are wired to use our different senses and previous =
experiences in conjunction and that the right misdirection with one sense o=
r preconception can cause our perceptions to go haywire. The idea that we c=
an set up a test with deliberate misdirection that can fool the senses hard=
ly shows that there is no discernible differences. this is why it is so dif=
ficult to actually put together really good tests of human perception. agen=
das can easily creep in and ruin the test.