>>
> His main concern is whether the experience of wine is subjective and unique to each individual, or whether the wine has an objective taste that can be shared among people who know what to look for. Can anyone be "right" when giving judgment about a wine?
>
> Though this question may seem academic, a lot of money rides on whether we can depend on wine experts to give us objective evaluations of the quality of wine.
<<

> I wonder what other people think.

I think peoples' experience of any sensory pleasure, be it art, music, wine, food, sex, or even a good night's sleep (hmm... interesting progression is very much influenced by the person's mindset and environment at the time. When I drink wine, I am doing so in a =context=, and that context is providing the background for whatever flavors and aromas the wine will be teasing me with. Like the background of a painting, it cannot be separated from the foreground subject so as to say "=this= amount of pleasure in viewing the painting came from the way the clouds play against the blue sky, and =that= amount of pleasure came from the expression on the horse's face, and to that we add =this other= amount of pleasure due to the placement of the horizon line.

Yes, these things can be analyzed - they do that all the time in art school (with a certain degree of... beef by-products in the mix). But pleasure (and pain) is not additive. Cut and paste the horse from this painting into that painting, moving the girl from that painting to this one, and you do not get the same amount of joy. There is synergy in any artwork.

The same is true for a dining experience, and for a glass of wine. There is an objective base (dry, tannic, spicy...) but to turn that into pleasure requires context. Some of that context even has a name ("acquired taste"), and our ability to acquire a taste in the first place implies an ability, in fact, a need, to adjust our perception of pleasure to fit expectations.

Relating this back to the Caltech experiment... (too bad one can't crosspost to threads)...

If I am told that this is wine x and that is wine y, I may prefer wine x. I am thinking in the present. But if I am told that wine y is one of the finest examples of a classic Bordeaux wine, I am likely to give it another chance in my evaluation. It =should= be a wine I might prefer, and I'll more actively seek out, and find, its good points. Or at least points of interest, which I may (over time) decide are good points, or not, but the question isn't asked later - it's asked =now=, when I'm giving this wine y another chance.

My mind is =not= being objective when I do this, but it's not trying to be objective.

People do tend (and this has been verified in many experiments) to go with other people's opinions when asked to express their own. I suspect it's part of what makes us social creatures (or pack animals, depending on your take). This is especially true when one takes away a lot of the first order information that is being judged. In the Caltech experiment, we have neophytes (how many college students are sophisticated about wine at that age?) who are sipping through a straw while lying down (no nose, probably ineffective swirling, no decent context of wine enjoyment) while being given other sources of pleasure at the same time, which are not being controlled for (in fact, that may be the point of the experiment).

I look forward to reading the report, but suspect it will not be as enlightening as it might have been.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.