The World’s Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!

Why We Like What We Like

Why We Like What We Like

By Alva Noë

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

I mean, can you tell the difference by taste?

Many of you are probably pretty sure that you could, and also that you could tell the difference between a $100 bottle of a splendid vintage and some $5 schlock, right? But can you really? In a blind taste test?

Scientists have looked into these questions and the findings are, well, they're disgusting. It turns out most people won't notice the difference between paté and dog food, so long as the latter is suitably presented with the right sort of garnish. 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. And we'll enjoy soggy old potato chips, it turns out, if our chewing is accompanied (over head phones) by the satisfying sound of crunching.

What are we to make of this?

I think there is a temptation, when we learn of these studies, to feel that we have been somehow unmasked, exposed, revealed to be, well, inauthentic in our pleasures. 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. Maybe the evolutionary psychologists are right and our preferences are really complicated strategies to display wealth and win sexual partners.

And of course we're no better off when it comes to sex. We choose our sexual partners based in large measure on features that have nothing to do with the intrinsic "taste" of the sex acts themselves. If this were not the case, why would we care to have sex only with people of a given gender, or age, or appearance? Even blind men care about how women they meet look. Why? — Could you actually tell whether it is your wife's hand that you are holding, and not that of a perfect stranger, in a blind taste test, as it were? And what would it mean to you if you could not?

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

ALSO SEE:

How Pleasure Works: The New Science of Why We Like What We Like

Tags: dispositions, human, nature, pleasure

0 members like this

< Previous Post

Comment

You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by Jedi Wanderer on April 29, 2012 at 8:55pm: Hah, well I don't know about ecstasy, but I'm pretty sure you give me something good and tell me its a placebo I'll be all, hey! Give me some more of this fucking placebo please!

Comment by Dallas the Phallus on April 29, 2012 at 8:46pm: Phoenix, I agree with you somewhat. There are some flaws with the articles. Take the paté: Did the people tested have prior experience with paté, or was the dogfood-presented-as-paté their first experience with it ever? I think that's an important question. If they had no experience, they may not have know what to expect to begin with. Also, I'm not a huge fan of paté, but I suspect I would recognize dogfood when I tasted it, even in the dark.

I also agree with you about the beer. Even in a blind taste test I suspect I could tell the difference between Bud and Tsing Tao.

However, I think his points are 1.) people don't know as much as they think they do, and 2.) people can be manipulated to the point that their perceptions are affected. For example, and these are actual experiments, take the same wine and put in two different bottles. Tell group A it is a French wine and tell group B it is from New Jersey, and group A consistently rates the wine as being finer, exceptional, worth a high price, etc., than group B does. The only difference was the lie about the origin. So people's expectations do affect their appraisal of the wine.

Another test: Group A gets a headache painkiller they are told costs only ten cents to manufacture. Group B gets the same headache painkiller and told it costs $2.50 to manufacture. Guess which group consistently rates the pill as more effective? You guessed it, group B. Our assumption that something with a higher price has more intrinsic value convinces us it is more effective.

There was another test I saw a video for in which 2 participants were given ecstasy and told it was ecstasy, and 2 participants were given ecstasy and told it was just a placebo (but they had to take it as part of the control group for the experiment). The first 2 behaved all strung out and easy-breezy, just as you would expect, while the other two just got irritable and impatient during their wait. Those who expected to get high acted appropriately, while those who didn't expect it had a different reaction to the drug. It was all on tape, and it was interesting to watch.

Comment by Jedi Wanderer on April 29, 2012 at 8:12pm: I am quite sure that this story does not go quite all the way down to the whole truth. I'm quite sure there is a great deal of truth to the article, but there is also the possibility that some people really do prefer some finer things more than they do the cheaper stuff, and that this is true even more of people with, shall we say, a deeper appreciation of life than those who just live life for "shits and giggles", as one crass philosophy professor put it to me once. A few examples: Music: most people just like pop, or really couldn't care less what they are listening to, but people with an ear for music like many more different styles of music, like opera or (in my case anyway) bluegrass. They can enjoy the pop crap too from time to time, but can't stand to listen to it all the time like those others.

Alcohol: The common comparison is between beer and wine, but I've become a bit of a beer connoisseur (wow, spelled that right the first time through), and I can tell you there is a world of difference between a Budweiser and a fine Belgian doppelbock. I can choke down just about any beer, but I only really enjoy the good stuff.

I thought I had another good example but I'll just add that the same thing applies probably to a great many "tastes". I imagine the undiscerning might not care too much about the company they keep, as another example, while the discerning are more choosy (and choose better company). And no, more often than not being discerning is not motivated by the desire to appear better than we are for social status or prestige, but by a true love of finer things. I personally could give a crap about displaying wealth (I wouldn't want to attract the kind of people on whom that would work, even if I had any to display), and I prefer to attract women who, like myself, care about the intrinsic worth of a thing rather than its extrinsic value. So I find this article (based on only the part you posted) to be very one-sided and cynical.

Comment by Napoleon Bonaparte on April 28, 2012 at 11:22pm: Iggy Pop - Dog Food (a Smart Dog Video production)

Comment by Dallas the Phallus on April 28, 2012 at 10:55pm: Thanks Steph. Andy, I did not like the sex pref comment she made, as that goes deeper than one's food preferences.

Comment by Steph S. on April 28, 2012 at 9:24pm: That was funny Napoleon .. made me laugh .. your response here... really funny.

Comment by Steph S. on April 28, 2012 at 9:23pm: Thanks for the article link. I always enjoy your posts!

Comment by Andy Reid on April 28, 2012 at 7:57pm: I agree. As long as Pabst Blue Ribbon is really itself, I'll be just fine. As far as sexual preferences, I have some male to female friends that you really couldn't tell the difference. It's all about what you have been taught, as well as expectations.

Comment by Ficking Chucken on April 28, 2012 at 7:31pm: I can't tell you what I did with the can of dog food.

Comment by Ficking Chucken on April 28, 2012 at 7:26pm: When I was younger I used to work at one of those 7-11 type 24 hr. convenience stores. Once, while opening up the bucket of hot dog chili I recognized the odor as the same as a high quality dog food. I then purchased a can of dog food and opened it and had a side by side sniff test of it and the chili. There was no discernible difference between the two. I used to do this with customers (I could get away with this on the third shift) and they too were grossed out by what they were putting on their hot dogs.

As a token of my humanity I used to let folks eat the chili for free from then on after. What a nice guy I am!!