CafeNoir wrote:Oh man, that hurts. You're saying my 1974 signal green Opel Manta wasn't a chick magnet?

That depends... did the "chicks" you picked up have large Adams apples and speak in deep tones?

As a GM official said when asked "What's the difference between a Cadillac Cimmaron and a Chevy Cavalier?"
About 5 grand

Phaelon56 wrote:But I CAN have some influence on some of the people I meet in helping to shape or alter the path of their subjective opinions about the objective differences in coffee. .... And having these beliefs is in no way an indication that I am "mesmerized by pop culture subjectivism".

The first thing you say is exactly what I've been saying: taste can be trained to meet common standards, and such common standards are desirable for a functioning group of coffee lovers.

I'm sorry you are offended that I characterized you thinking that you disagree with me as "mesmerism." I didn't mean it personally.

I meant that our culture comes ready made with common modes of thought and speech about taste. Ironically enough, this common mode of thinking is a quasi-religious and completely superstitious awe at the power and glory of ones "individual and subjective" tastes and preferences. To say that "I did this because I like doing it" is the same as saying "sleeping pills have a dormative property," that is, it says nothing at all.

This is why I call "because I like it" taste explanations mesmerism. It's a way of stopping rational thought about taste, rather than starting it.

I've come to realize a high correlation between yumminess-to-me and *extremely* objective quality. A deobfuscation of my wiring and beans has worked wonders that I wouldn't have predicted. That's my current standing.

another_jim wrote:I recommend basing your taste in coffee on its terroir, and on the care that went into growing, prepping, roasting and preparing it. That is an objective standard for taste in coffee. Choosing to use it consistently is up to you.

I can buy-in to this, but it describes a lifetime of learning. To transform taste sensations into meaningful interpretations of terroir, care in handling, etc. is very difficult. For example, I have a bit of experience with roasting my own coffee. This experience has given me the ability to know when I get coffee from my local roaster that has a roasting flaw (like a stalled roast). How do I taste the care in handling, when I have no idea how it was handled, and without an expectation of everything that poor handling comprises or tastes like?

Keeping these standards objective through the transformation from red cherry to the taste in one's mouth is the whole trick, as one needs standards against which to benchmark. I would love to have some shortcuts through this process - similar to what Jason refers to with Le Nez du Vin, only in descriptive form.

Mark

another_jim wrote:taste can be trained to meet common standards, and such common standards are desirable for a functioning group of coffee lovers.

Why is that? Diversity of preferences is not good? Conformity in taste preference assists in the survival of the group and is therefore "desirable"? The thread that this was split from seemed to me to be a guy expressing some slightly odd ideas and (about half the time) getting burned for people thinking he was trying to make people believe what he said. Are we really expected to believe everything that is written here? Someone even said that the reaction to him was necessary because people might read the thread and believe the OP. Sounded to me like a certain amount of heretic burning. There are separate communities of people here on the subject of tamping, on lever machines, even on the amount of technical messing about that is desirable in making a cup of coffee, and memberships in these overlap and vary over time. Why can't there be different communities around taste?

Elsewhere in the thread:

HB wrote:good sensory judges can distinguish between their personal preference and a well-explained standard of an exceptional espresso

This reads like standards trumping personal preferences, and that makes me nervous, whose preferences are being encoded in the standards?

Randy G. wrote:That depends... did the "chicks" you picked up have large Adams apples and speak in deep tones?

That depends... are we talking about Pat? or Chris?

Re the topic at hand I don't have anything useful to add about taste, as my palate is about as educated as a palette (the kind made from rough wood). But I was glad to see King Seven's reference to Mark Rothko, as it felt like a lopsighted analogy between taste and sight when the latter was reduced to the ability to distinguish between red and green.

Malachi wrote: "Correct"?!?!?!
As defined by WHOM?

coffeefrog wrote:This reads like standards trumping personal preferences, and that makes me nervous, whose preferences are being encoded in the standards?

Again, to say "I like it because of MY preferences," is to say "thou shalt not question what I do." We have a sort of social contract that when we work, we hold ourselves responsible for the consequences of our actions and decisions; but when we are shopping, eating, etc, we don't. That's fine by me. In fact, if I had my druthers, I'd rather never be held responsible, credited, praised or blamed for anything at all.

But that is not what I'm talking about. So please don't accuse me me being some sort of grinch trying to take away people's Adam Smith given right to like whatever they please.

Question: Bill likes Starbucks better than Dunkin Donuts, Sally the reverse. How much are their lives improved by being able to get the one they want?
Answer: A bit, but nothing dramatic.

Question Now Sally learns about coffee, she knows what she is drinking, enjoys expensive auction coffees more than others, can taste the flaws in roasting etc. Now, how much more than Bill does she get out of drinking any coffee, good or bad, Starbucks or DD. Just a bit, or maybe a whole lot?
Answer: You decide

I strive to be objective in my taste to get more pleasure out of my coffee, not to take it away.