Nowhere is this difference more strikingly demonstrated than in the studies that have been done on wine tasting.[1]
An example from the article:
Hodgson isn't alone in questioning the science of
wine-tasting. French academic Frédéric Brochet tested the effect of
labels in 2001. He presented the same Bordeaux superior wine to 57
volunteers a week apart and in two different bottles – one for a
table wine, the other for a grand cru.
The tasters were fooled.
When tasting a supposedly superior wine, their language was more
positive – describing it as complex, balanced, long and woody. When
the same wine was presented as plonk, the critics were more likely
to use negatives such as weak, light and flat.
But I'd put money that every experienced taster was able to deduce in blind tasting the bordeaux from the (insert other wine type??). Indeed as I understand it from watching Frasier there are clubs which do these blind tastings all the time.
In other words. I may tell you this bordeaux is cheap and acidic, but at no point was I mistaking it for a bottle of Rose.
I think when you try to trick somebody into thinking a wine is something different from what it is, that's very much different from saying we can't tell apart wines at all.
I agree with the general inability of wine tasters to discern nearly as much as they believe, just not this particular example.
Expecting to taste a red wine and getting a disguised white wine means you're not ready to appreciate a white wine. It's a whole different world so no wonder they found it off.
It would have actually been a better call to stick to white wine, no coloring added, and differentiate only with the label.
They've done studies like that too, with similar results.
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/jun/23/wine-tas...
Oh really?
http://www.newyorker.com/tech/frontal-cortex/does-all-wine-t...
A similar argument can be made about confusing two types of potato vs a potato and a parsnip. Yes pleasure is subjective, and taste is to some extent. In general there are limits to this effect.
Yes, I could effectively overcook the taste out of both things, mush them into a texture-less paste, and then stuff them full of enough herbs and spices to mask any semblance of their original flavour. At that point perhaps I've won - but then I'm not sure it meets the claim.
"We see something, and we simply presuppose how it's going to smell and taste. We know that apples, for instance, are crisp, sweet and drippy. But if we close our eyes, hold our nose and bite into an onion, chances hard we won't be able to tell the difference because onions are also crisp, sweet and drippy."
It works the other way too, if you want to freak someone out switch the coke/beer in their can with OJ while they're distracted. They will act like they have been poisoned.
http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2007/11/02/the-subjectivity-o...
http://www.newyorker.com/tech/frontal-cortex/does-all-wine-t...
I realize that you have a study that's vaguely related but the two are not the same. Not at all.
What are the credentials of the people on the "wine tasting panel"? I can't find that information anywhere.
This oft referenced study took oenology students and asked them to use adjectives to describe the odors of the wine. The only wines tested were white...and white with food coloring. It is unfortunate that red wine wasn't actually tested, as it would provide an interesting contrast, nor was taste actually tested at all. So as is all that you can go on is that given what appears to be a red wine, students who presumably have motives other than being entirely straightforward use red wine-type terminology.
It is an interesting study, but is not quite the trump card that so many think it is.
Further, it's a little silly how people are taking products with minor taste differences (most beers, wines, ryes, etc, are made with almost identical processes, yielding close to identical results), and then presuming to claim that the same applies to things that are dramatically different. That someone couldn't tell the expensive wine from the table wine does not prove that someone can't tell a beef burger from a veggie burger.
Well, yes. That's true. Don't confuse my contribution to the topic drift for a rejection of that point.
http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/tastes-...
The people who picked pepsi got swag, the people who picked coke did not. They didn't hide this at all, they would yell that pepsi was the winner every time someone picked it, and gave them cool stuff in front of everyone.
The fact is some people can tell the difference and some people can't. Part of it is training if you devote some time to learning the differences in taste then you will gain some skill. I drink both of those colas roughly about the same amount so I've become acquainted with the taste differences.
Part of it is genetics some people just have more sensitive palates than other. I do in general have a more sensitive nose than many of the others I know so that may be part of it as well.
I would wager though that the majority of the population have neither trained nor have the sensitivity to tell the difference between a lot of things.
I suspect something similar is going on with other taste tests. Different people are sensitive to different flavor profiles.
Pretty much a moot point since I don't drink much pop to begin with...
Those taste trsts normally give small sips of the drink. That changes the way you drink it, and that affects the flavour.
They also tend to use colder drinks which also affects flavour.
Based on my experience, it can be hard to tell if a patty is meat or veg if the quantities are small (too small to feel the texture difference).