Unsubtle dig on craft beer from NPR

[bernerbrau]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2012/02/10/146645622/why-we-like-what-we-like?sc=fb&cc=fp

From the article:

After all, if we can't really taste the difference between cheap beer mixed with vinegar and an expensive micro-brew, then surely this means that our preference for the finer stuff is, well, a pretension.

The article then goes on to argue that since sexual satisfaction is largely based on appearance, that this must also hold true of our food and drink perception.

My first impulse was to write an angry letter to the editor, but let's dial it back and talk first. Is our enjoyment of craft beer nothing but pure pretense? Let's get the homebrewing community's opinion on the suggestion that IPA is just Bud with vinegar.

And... GO!

 

[Misplaced_Canuck]

So lame.

I can tell, just by smell, that my dogs' milk-bones are stale since I put them in the bin.

MC

 

[E-Mursed]

You are being told that an appreciation of craft beer is pretension by the bastion of pretension.

Nuff said....

 

[Sacdan]

It's NPR. What do you expect from that trash?

 

[bernerbrau]

Here was my response in the comment thread:

When I was 19, I couldn't tell Bud from Sierra Nevada, let alone Zin from Riesling. I just didn't have enough experience with different wines to pick out the identifying characteristics. However, if you spend the time actually learning the subtle differences in flavor, I absolutely guarantee you'll be able to pick out the difference.

These reports claiming "there's no difference in the taste, it's just your mind playing tricks on you" are just junk science. It's like claiming there's no difference between a BMW and a Jeep, because inexperienced drivers can't articulate the difference.

 

[unionrdr]

Sounds like the author is about as intelligent as a box of rocks when it comes to BCB's & craft beers. But there are many people that don't like hoppy beers. My son & I ran into a distributor at Bundy's Beverage yesterday,that doesn't like IPA's. He went on to say that he deals with so many bars,beer stores,etc that he just doesn't drink that much beer. Like a guy that works in a resturant all day,isn't likely to be too crazy for that kind of food. Seemed logically human to me.
But dang,that comparison is allowing his IQ to be rather obvious. If they don't like hoppy beers,then why don't they try some pale ales or hefe's or something? There's so many styles & variations out there,they're bound to like one if they look long enough...

 

[bernerbrau]

If you're not a fan of NPR, that's no skin off my hide. But the thread is about the article. You want to discuss your love or hate for public radio, open a debate forum thread.

 

[bernerbrau]

But dang,that comparison is allowing his IQ to be rather obvious. If they don't like hoppy beers,then why don't they try some pale ales or hefe's or something? There's so many styles & variations out there,they're bound to like one if they look long enough...

Yeah, I hear this "all beers taste the same to me" comment all the time. This just sounds like someone with a soapbox trying to justify his personal experience with beer.

Thing is I saw the same sort of "blind taste test" on Bullsh!t a few years ago, and they tried to claim the same thing - that because unrefined palates can't tell the difference that there is no difference. And if I remember correctly, they also tried to tackle the "refined palate" argument by citing the same study.

 

[Pilgarlic]

I'm not an NPR hater, but any article's source is relevant to a discussion of the article's merits.

 

[SlimeyBooger]

I'm curious what "expensive micro-brew" and "cheap beer" were used in the taste test.

 

[Thehopguy]

Ya thats crap. Being able to tell the difference between a Bud and an IPA? Sheesh..I'm getting to the point where I can tell which hops I prefer in my IPA alone.

 

[gr8shandini]

It seems like most of you didn't keep reading after the "dig" on microbrews

. . . It's hard to avoid the conclusion that we are frauds and fakes.

But this would be exactly the wrong conclusion to draw, and it turns, I believe, on a widely accepted but misguided conception not just of pleasure, but of perception itself. It turns on the idea that perceptual qualities are qualitative atoms whose occurrence is fixed by the intrinsic quality of our internal, presumably physical (neural) states. Taste, we suppose, is in the mouth. So if we can't discriminate taste just on the basis of what is happening in our taste buds, then, well, we are making the difference up. But this is crazy. . . .

He goes on to explain more, but his point was that it's incorrect to form conclusions about one's experience of something if you've gone out of your way to alter the experience. Remember in grade school when they'd have a volunteer close his eyes, hold his nose, and taste a piece of "apple" that turned out to be onion? We all know that doesn't make apples and onions the same thing, and that's the point he's making.

 

[rockfish42]

"But this would be exactly the wrong conclusion to draw, and it turns, I believe, on a widely accepted but misguided conception not just of pleasure, but of perception itself. It turns on the idea that perceptual qualities are qualitative atoms whose occurrence is fixed by the intrinsic quality of our internal, presumably physical (neural) states. Taste, we suppose, is in the mouth. So if we can't discriminate taste just on the basis of what is happening in our taste buds, then, well, we are making the difference up.

But this is crazy."

Did I just read the same article?

Edit: Beaten to the punch

 

[unionrdr]

Startin to sound like the blind leading the blind if they site articles by someone who doesn't have the palette yet to site the complexities between the two. I mean that's all well & good if you like BCB's. But don't point your plastic fingers at me like I'm a snobby lunatic.
And it would indeed be interesting to find out which were used in the comparison. The ones picked could likely be ones that prove the narrower thinking of the BCB crowd vs craft drinkers that have a lot of bittering,very hoppy,dark & malty,etc vs bud or something.And presuming that most of the percieved differences are neurological is the same as saying if you think it's different or better,than it is. Twaddlespeak says I. I'm not The beer Hunter,but jeez. Even I have the ability to experience a different brew on it's own merits. Sip my way through a glass as it warms to see if it gets better or worse. That's a part of the experience,not just for guzzeling till you're gullet can't hold anymore. I think that's the essence of what all beer drinkers need to learn. Then more understanding will be had.

 

[noodledancer77]

Did none of you read the article? There's a turning point where she says, "but this would be the wrong conclusion to draw.". You are all so quick to confront that you missed the point of the article. And, many news organizations allow the presentation of content on their websites from many perspectives. If you disagree, it is with the author, not the owner of the site.

 

[spearko520]

terry gross must be stopped!! i don't know if she has anything to do with this, but i still contend that she is the antichrist...
mmmm vinegar beer....

 

[Phunhog]

I would say this though how many of us could tell the difference between an American Lager from BMC and a craft brewed American Lager? Do they taste different? Should they taste different?

 

[E-Mursed]

Did none of you read the article? There's a turning point where she says, "but this would be the wrong conclusion to draw.". You are all so quick to confront that you missed the point of the article. And, many news organizations allow the presentation of content on their websites from many perspectives. If you disagree, it is with the author, not the owner of the site.

So you are saying the the OP mislead us into a false argument based on limited information???

Shaz-bot! That changes everything.

 

[blizzard]

The studies were done or evaluated by a psychologist/author and not by the author of the article. Why are you so offended by the beer comment and not the wine comments or the ones about potato chips? For a group that is overall very concerned with the experience of drinking beer, I find it ironic you are so worked up in disputing a set of the findings about how experience affects perception. Is this not obvious on some level ??

 

[motobrewer]

Did none of you read the article? There's a turning point where she says, "but this would be the wrong conclusion to draw.". You are all so quick to confront that you missed the point of the article. And, many news organizations allow the presentation of content on their websites from many perspectives. If you disagree, it is with the author, not the owner of the site.

yeah, no kidding. also note the keyword "if" in the OP's quote.

 

[unionrdr]

While siting the work of others,he does back off at one point to look at the flip side. But again,filtered through the psychologist's interpretations. As for the potato chip bit,I can't imagine someone chewing limp chips while listening to crunching not being abel to pay attention to what their nero-transmitters are telling them. Or drinking a Bud as compared to,say,a German lager. Or comparing said Bud against a light pal ale. If the person knows that it's their perceptions being questioned,then they obviously would be looking to sense the differences.

 

[ayoungrad]

Everyone should read the article. It is interesting and beer is not even the focus. The beginning of the article is made to grab your attention - which it has clearly done. But the true information in the article comes later...

"We can discriminate dog food and paté, red wine and white, holding hands with someone we love and holding hands with a stranger. But what we are discriminating, when we do this, is not neural events in the mouth or hand, but what we are doing. And when the wine expert, or the lover, describes what matters in the flavor, or the caress, he or she is not identifying marks or features of the intrinsic qualities in the nervous system that only the expert of the lover can discern; taste is not a kind of measurement. Rather, the expert is calling attention to features of the flavor and the action that are precisely there for us to think about and pay attention to. If we choose to. And of course we don't have to choose to. People (individuals, but also classes and cultures) differ in what they choose to care about."

What I take away from this is that our perceptions (including taste) are not based on simple on off switches. They are complex and are affected by many things.

So craft beers do taste different than other beers. But why they do is not solely on the basis of the perception of taste buds... at the very least, as others have mentioned, taste is hugely biased by our perception of smell.

 

[pohldogg]

I don't see what the big deal is. I'd anyone actually suprised that we think things taste better when the experience is positive. The point seems to be that we're influenced beyond flavor and i wouldn't call it a dig on craft beer. Hell, I thought my first batch "tasted" great and I promise that was 95% because I made it and only 5% flavor.

 

[bernerbrau]

I did read the article. But my take-away from the conclusion of the article was that he was saying in a non-committal fashion that our experiences are more holistic than mere sensory perception.

To me, that's not quite the reversal of the initial thesis as some here are suggesting.

 

[motobrewer]

While siting the work of others,he does back off at one point to look at the flip side.

back off what, exactly? flip side of what, exactly?

the author of the article doesn't actually make any assertions or arguments. they are merely reporting that scientific studies are going on that look into how we perceive.

 

[motobrewer]

I did read the article. But my take-away from the conclusion of the article was that he was saying in a non-committal fashion that our experiences are more holistic than mere sensory perception.

To me, that's not quite the reversal of the initial thesis as some here are suggesting.

what thesis???

is the author presenting a thesis?

 

[ayoungrad]

I did read the article. But my take-away from the conclusion of the article was that he was saying in a non-committal fashion that our experiences are more holistic than mere sensory perception.

To me, that's not quite the reversal of the initial thesis as some here are suggesting.

Whether or not you consider it a reversal is a moot point. But the conclusion does infer that we can differentiate between things we like and things we do not like.

 

[bernerbrau]

what thesis???

is the author presenting a thesis?

He presents his thesis from the start... it's presented in a provocative manner but it's fairly clear that the questions are rhetorical:

Can you tell the difference between gourmet liver paté and dog food?

I mean, can you tell the difference by taste?

...and the conclusion is "sort of, but there's more going on than taste alone."

My stubborn contentiousness is over the fact that is that it still sort of implies that there is a certain amount of self-deception going on when we say we prefer the taste of one type of beer, wine, or food over another.

But I've never been much of a holistic thinker

 

[motobrewer]

that's not "his thesis"

those are questions related to the scientific study he's reporting on. he isn't presenting himself as a expert, or offering a thesis on the matter.

When an article says, "Are we alone in the universe?" and then presents information on studies that are looking at that, the author isn't an expert on intergalactic biology.

 

[harrymanback92]

The author clearly states that taste is a matter of perception and as such it's a subjective experience. To someone new to drinking, all beers can taste the same; that doesn't mean that all beers taste the same. It means that person is not perceiving the complex favors in a brew. If they continue to evolve their palate, they will come to taste the complexities. If they choose to notice those flavors. It also points out that aesthetic variables ( color, head, smell etc) have a lot to do with it. I think that's true, isn't that why we brewers do things like add clarifying agents, secondary fermentation, we even have srm calculations. The way a brew looks totally matters when it comes to taste.

The author is not saying craft beer is the same as bud with vinegar; rather, the author is detailing how our perception of what we taste is what determines what we actually taste.

Once, my friends from out of town wanted to taste some finer California wines. We purchased 12 bottles, all from northern California, where I live, we bought some 85 dollar bottles of wine, and some 1.99 bottles. I set it up for them and we took blind taste tests. Our top three wines were a 50 dollar bottle, a 2 dollar bottle of Charles shaw, and a 15 dollar bottle. Taste is totally subjective, that's what the article and the research is trying to say.

 

[bernerbrau]

It's clear upon reflection, and from the reaction I've engendered, that I've acted presumptuously.

In the future, I will try to be more reasoned and thoughtful in my initial analysis when opening a discussion thread.

 

[spearko520]

the most amazing thing is that someone was able to connect craft beer and pretentiousness. what's next, penile girth and the car you drive???

 

[harrymanback92]

Bernerbrau,

It's just the way the Internet and blogosphere work. I can tell by a large number of comments most people saw the "craft beer is bud with vinegar" and the NPR link, most people didn't take the time to read past the title. Welcome to the internet :/

 

[Qhrumphf]

And as for our ability to discriminate wine, even experts may confuse a white wine with a red when it is served at room temperature in a dark glass.

This sentence says to me that the study is even taking an advanced palate into account. While it doesn't explicitly say so, I'd say the inference applies to beer as well as wine.

As an example, when I was younger I was walking my dog barefoot. He dropped a load, and I unknowingly stepped in it before the smell hit me. It actually felt quite good, until I smelled it, and THEN it was disgusting.

Point being, isolating single sensory experiences can provide strange results, but it's our total sensory experience that matters. Like a few others have said, the context. And I think that's the point the article is making.

 

[JohnTheBrewist]

It's clear upon reflection, and from the reaction I've engendered, that I've acted presumptuously.

In the future, I will try to be more reasoned and thoughtful in my initial analysis when opening a discussion thread.

I don't know why you say this, there are obviously opinions on both sides of this article which makes for good discussion. Seems like a good topic to me.

In one sense, I agree with the author. Someone who is not a wine connoissuer probably can't tell you which bottle is the expensive one, but they CAN discern which one they like better, which might or might not be the expensive one.

In the case of beer, I think it should be pretty easy to tell a craft brew from BMC, but the average person would probably choose the BMC as the one they liked better. Personally, I am the opposite of a hophead. I like a smooth, balanced, flavor. If you put three bottles in front of me in a blind taste test, with say Coors, Spaten, and Stone Arrogant Bastard; I could tell you which one was $1 a bottle, $2 a bottle and $4 a bottle. But as to my taste, I'd pick 1.Spaten, 2.Coors and 3.Stone. Would a non-beer drinker be able to tell that difference between Spaten and Coors, maybe not.

People are willing to pay a premium for Starbucks coffee, even though to a real coffee connoisuer Starbucks is just mediocre coffee that's been over-roasted.

I guess my point is that hype and pretension certainly do play a roll, and to some extent fool the masses of people who haven't the inclination to learn what they like for themselves.

 

[bernerbrau]

I don't know why you say this, there are obviously opinions on both sides of this article which makes for good discussion. Seems like a good topic to me.

The topic isn't the problem. I presented an obvious reactionary slant on the article, without taking the time to fully digest it. This had the effect of skewing the conversation at the outset and inhibited reasoned discussion.

Worse, when I was called on what I did, I attempted to backpedal.

That was my apology. I would love to continue a thoughtful discussion on the topic.

 

[Qhrumphf]

The topic isn't the problem. I presented an obvious reactionary slant on the article, without taking the time to fully digest it. This had the effect of skewing the conversation at the outset and inhibited reasoned discussion.

Worse, when I was called on what I did, I attempted to backpedal.

That was my apology. I would love to continue a thoughtful discussion on the topic.

Eh, no worries. I think the article covered this. We don't like being told that we may not like the things we like for the reasons we think we like them. If that makes any sense. And the backlash in this thread actually kind of reinforces that point.

 

[Pilgarlic]

Reminds me of the time I insisted my wife's palate couldn't justify her demand that we pay for orange blossom honey. A blind taste test proved it. Bitter victory...

 

[JohnTheBrewist]

The topic isn't the problem. I presented an obvious reactionary slant on the article, without taking the time to fully digest it. This had the effect of skewing the conversation at the outset and inhibited reasoned discussion.

Worse, when I was called on what I did, I attempted to backpedal.

That was my apology. I would love to continue a thoughtful discussion on the topic.

Oh, OK, I get it now, and as an apology it has class. But if you hadn't posted your initial post in the way you did, it might not have inspired the same passion in the discussion. Sometimes someone has to play the devil's advocate...

 

[noodledancer77]

I appreciate the op's comments and the discussion. Another reason I enjoy this site. In general, I think we are quick to share our opinions when we haven't yet taken much time forming them. As a biologist I will admit that understanding of a published study is difficult when it is only referenced in another paper. You really have to read the original study to comprehend the objectives or conclusions. I'm gonna get a beer now!!