> On that basis, if I go to an expensive restaurant and do not get food that is qualitatively better and not just different and in its own category, then I am being taken for a fool.

Why?

Does novelty have no value for you?

The Michelin Star restaurant isn't just "different", it's a difference that is hard to find.

Michelin Star ratings:

1 Star: Worth a stop when you are driving.

2 Star: Worth a detour when you are driving.

3 Star: Worth a dedicated trip.

Price is, as with everything, supply vs demand.

> Why?

> Does novelty have no value for you?

Absurd.

What kind of "novelty" is there for _you_ in eating food at an expensive restaurant that is not qualitatively better than that which you can buy more cheaply? That isn't novelty, it's foolishness.

I don't need Michelin star ratings explained to me, I know all about them. I also know that people make dumb decisions when their aspirations, jealousies and FOMO are tickled.

I think I’m right in between these two points of view. I’m a reasonably good cook and in many cuisines, I can prepare myself something of restaurant quality at home for a fraction of the price.

But I’m not an artist with food. For me, the novelty comes from seeing what artists can come up with given the space to just create.

Then I get even more value because I can take what I learned and cook it at home. I get to relive the dining experience when I cook. And if I get to cook that dish (or another dish inspired by it) for someone else, I get to share the story again!

We’re all different and our relationships with food are no different so I don’t expect to convince you. I definitely don’t think you’re wrong. But that’s how I get value out of meals I can often prepare myself, even after I’ve thoroughly ripped them off.

Perhaps a useful analogy would be a roller coaster vs. a limousine. The limousine is comfortable. The roller coaster is thrilling.

OK but I am not paying extra money for a meal where part of the experience is that some of the food is terrible value and some is amazing, or to eat at a place where (knowing a little of rollercoaster physics) it has actually been carefully planned that way to maximise the thrill and discomfort.

That would be like an ARFID theme park. [0]

Which now I think of it is a good description of this:

https://everywhereist.com/2021/12/bros-restaurant-lecce-we-e...

Honestly, some of the justifications for the poor value proposition and past poor experiences of "fine dining" really make me chuckle. Food shouldn't be an exam, an IQ test, or a show of sophistication or class. Putting up with being misled by people selling you sophistication but delivering you average food is silly, and yet it happens a lot.

[0] I have ARFID, pretty much totally ignorable now but hell when I was a child.

Oh and for the people who will get snippy and downvote me because I didn't give them a direct link to the wikipedia entry for the acronym they just aren't informed enough to have heard of before, fine, here's your link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avoidant/restrictive_food_inta...

I think Bros is a fine example -- the exception, IMO -- of when the system breaks down. I wouldn't enjoy that experience either. Maybe there are some people who would, I don't know; I'm not going to begrudge them their enjoyment of that kind of experience if that's really their thing. But I would have expected that this sort of experience would be way too niche (in a "the vast majority of people won't like this" way) to warrant Michelin's attention.

By and large, most Michelin-starred restaurants are not like Bros. You get enough food so you don't walk out feeling hungry. The food tastes good, and is cooked beautifully, using high-quality ingredients. And sometimes, yes, depending on the restaurant, they will also do something novel with that food and with flavors.

The hilarious comments on that Bros article actually really warmed my heart, because as funny as it is, I found reading the article just a little bit triggering.

As I say, I battled (and I'm sure my parents battled even more) significantly with ARFID as a child, but as an adult I really eat all sorts of stuff, having learned a lot about food and a bit about cookery, to conquer fear. I don't really have red lines (apart from those dictated by one dietary sensitivity and pretty conclusive lactose intolerance, boo). So dining out is fun.

I might even be less fussy than average because I am comfortable with putting in some pre-restaurant menu research, which has invariably led to me enjoying my choices and exploring new stuff.

But I have learned over time that a lot of people who think they can taste the quality of a thing could not in a blind test, that a lot of people who believe they can pick out specific rare ingredients only think they can because they read the menu, etc.

A lot of people can taste the bill, not the food.

What I am still finely tuned to resent, and I suppose it could be on show here, particularly in my Jay Rayner stanning, is bad experiences being treated snobbishly or in a judgemental way, because that can dig up some difficult memories.

So I am way past being difficult about food -- I'm not a child and I'm not Paul Hollywood. People eat what they like and enjoy what they like, and that is fabulous.

But if serving staff show dismissive tone or body language if any one of my party (it won't be me) asks a question about food that suggests unworldliness or awkwardness or fear of food, they will get the smallest acceptable tip, and I will quietly choose the cheapest things on the menu.

And if food is expensive and sold as the work of experts, but of poor or average quality, I'm not going to sit back and say, well, fine dining is about the experience and it was a novel experience. I'm going to tell people I didn't enjoy it! (Not the staff. They will get told it was "fine", in a non-committal British way that holds multitudes.)

It's not absurd. People value different things, and while sometimes people do get sucked into hype or heavy marketing, sometimes something you think is a waste of money will be an experience someone else will enjoy.

I think framing it as being "better" (or not) than a regular meal doesn't really capture it. I certainly expect the food at a Michelin-starred (or other high-end) establishment to use fresh, high-quality ingredients, and to be seasoned and cooked properly. But I also very much appreciate just eating something different. I cook a decent amount at home, but I probably cook the same 6 or 7 dishes, with some small differences, over and over. When I go out to "normal" restaurants, I eat the same 30-odd dishes over and over.

Not that I don't enjoy all that! I certainly do. But sometimes I just want something drastically different. Flavors and flavor combinations that I don't encounter anywhere else. Specialty ingredients that I would never buy for myself, and aren't usually found in most restaurant meals. And I'm willing to pay a bit extra to get that experience every now and then.

But I think this is also just a false dichotomy. A restaurant isn't going to get a Michelin star just because they do something novel; the food has to be good, too. And some don't try to do novel things, but aspire to be the absolute best at a particular kind of cuisine or dish, and get awarded stars based on that.

Better is hard to define, as the root parent of this thread says, as you cannot directly compare, say, BBQ, to a molecular gastronomy meal; they are simply in different classes, "better" cannot be compared.

That being said, if you like the food, then eat it, and if not, don't, regardless of whether it's Michelin or not.

Better is subjective and of course a person can compare two different types of restaurants.

You do it every time you go out to determine where you want to go. You compare the two based on value, taste, frequency, and atmosphere.

All subjective of course, but it's a personal preference you can compare.

If the food was awful, the atmosphere or "novelty" was uncomfortable/unenjoyable/mediocre, the price was high in option A, you will feel cheated and would have rather had gone to option B. That experience will influence future decisions when comparing and deciding on a place.

> Does novelty have no value for you?

I'm not in the camp of "novelty has no value" but also not in the camp of "novelty automatically makes things better or worthwhile"

The only point of novelty is to discover new things I enjoy.

Eating at a fine dining restaurant and coming away with "that wasn't very good but it sure was novel" would be disappointing, and I'd probably think I had wasted my time and money on it compared to going to my favorite restaurant and eating my favorite meal there.

This is probably (partially) attributable to the IKEA-effect [1], where people perceive better quality in the things that they partially create.

Also one of the joys of cooking is that you are experiencing the immediate fruits your own labor. There's no prolonged scrum meetings, release cycles, delayed launches, etc. It such a simple feedback loop that it's a great way to give yourself short-term gratification. I've found even food prep is cathartic to a degree.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IKEA_effect

> This is probably (partially) attributable to the IKEA-effect [1], where people perceive better quality in the things that they partially create.

Or it just tasted nice ;-)