philosophical digression wrote:Seeing and hearing are, in their bare essentials, just as subjective as tasting; they are each sensations triggered by outside stimuli. So why do we take the things we see and hear as mostly real, while the things we taste and smell as mostly imagined?

The answer is simple -- control. We can paint and shape things, more recently take pictures, we can talk and make music, more recently write and record the sounds. We have no such precise control over tastes and smells, we have less vocabulary for writing them down, and we have no technology for recording them. Our sight and sound technologies go back to the stone age; our taste and smell technologies have hardly begun. We are full Homo Sapiens when it comes to sight and sound; but we haven't quite made it yet for tastes and smells.

Sakae wrote:I have this fixation that unless you are a professional coffee taster who lives life of deprivation to keep his palate intact and perfect condition, you cannot trust yourself; well, can you?

PeterG wrote:I think that we, as a culture, are generally too insecure about our senses of taste and smell. I talk to dozens of folks every week who say something to me like "I just can't tell the difference between coffees" and "My palate isn't sophisticated enough to detect the differences you describe". I always call BS on that. I usually ask: "Can you tell the difference between Coke and Pepsi? Do you have a preference?" The answer is usually "yes" to both. I then reply; "The difference between those two brands of soda is much subtler than the difference between a mediocre Kenya and a great one." To put it in the context of our discussion: if you can taste the difference between Coke and Pepsi (differences in sweetness and acidity) and you can tell the difference between salted and unsalted soda crackers, you probably have the physical ability to pass the sensory skills test. The obstacle, therefore, is largely mental. (Ted Lingle and Joseph Rivera would probably argue with me on this score, but I'll stick with it.)

Somehow, we've decided as a culture that perceiving and describing differences in wine, coffee, scotch, perfume, etc. is best left to the super-initiated and skilled. Most people, when they hear what I do for a living, say to me: "You must have an amazingly gifted palate." While I would love to think that this is true, I actually believe that my sense of taste or smell is no better or worse than, say, 80% of the people out there. I have tasted coffee with those who are considered the best in the industry, and they are in the same boat. The only thing we do differently is 1. pay attention, 2. trust our senses, and 3. document our results.

In thinking about this topic, it occurred to me that the sensory skills test measures not only the ability to physically taste, but the ability to confidently assert your results. And, in thinking about it, this is just as important to the espresso judge as the ability to taste is.

Sakae wrote:I have this fixation that unless you are a professional coffee taster who lives life of deprivation to keep his palate intact and perfect condition, you cannot trust yourself; well, can you?

another_jim wrote:The answer to this question is not going to make sense without a little philosophical digression:



As you get better at making espresso, you will get better at recognizing and describing the difference between good and bad espresso.