If you say you're a sushi connoisseur, but you only like top-shelf sushi prepared by world renowned chefs, then you don't really like sushi. You just like nice things. If you say you're a wine aficionado, but you will only drink wine that you've read is good, you don't really like wine.
Does a coffee aficionado need to enjoy a cup from the local 24-hour diner which was made by over-extracting cheap stale beans and then leaving the pot to sit on a hot pad for hours? Or a cup of instant coffee mixed with non-dairy creamer and two tablespoons of sugar?
Would a code connoisseur need to have an aesthetic appreciation for a corporate 500 kloc Java project that does nothing useful?
* * *
Someone who is deeply satisfied to eat anything called “sushi” is just a very hungry person, and someone who has an insatiable thirst for every type of wine is an alcoholic.
Or in other words, there’s a big gray area here. There is a very wide range of quality in most things, from «entirely unpalatable and probably poisonous» to «divine once-in-a-lifetime experience», as well as a wide range in particular tastes and preferences. Different people have different standards, and that’s okay.
One group of people can like student art films with no action and long philosophical monologue voiceovers by entirely unlikeable characters. Another group of people can like superhero movies with a predictable plot, flat characterization, and lots of explosions. Both groups can plausibly say they like “movies”.
For example: I love beer and consider myself a beer enthusiast. I've brewed it and know all about just every aspect of it. I have traveled to remote monasteries in Belgium to try excellent beers, and enjoyed drinking Dos Equis on a hot summer day by the pool. Most self-described "beer snobs" look down on beers like Corona and the like in favor of some "craft" IPA. Dos Equis isn't my favorite beer, but I recognize its good qualities and when a situation calls for it.
I think the poster was just saying that enthusiasts enjoy many aspects of something across a wide range and don't have to gravitate toward only the "divine once-in-a-lifetime" things.
Of course, maybe I'm totally off base.
It’s also fine for a different “connoisseur” to enjoy store-bought California rolls made from imitation crab and left sitting on a shelf until the rice is stale.
It’s overly reductionist and pretty patronizing to insist that the former doesn’t really like sushi while the latter does (No True Scotsman, and all that).
* * *
P.S. The mainstream brands of Mexican beer are pretty good. Most of the big Mexican breweries were started by German immigrants in the mid-19th century, and there is now a long beer tradition there. Corona’s extensive marketing to the US about tropical getaways and lime slices, etc. has nothing to do with their product or their brand in Mexico, and I find it fairly silly, but it was extremely successful.
I disagree for two reasons. First, it is important for any connoisseur to experience a wide range in order to truly appreciate the items on the finer end of the spectrum. Someone who only eats high end sushi is a pretender, not a connoisseur.
Second, low-end restaurants sometimes contain amazing dishes that any connoisseur may enjoy. Similarly, cheap wines have won blind-taste competitions before, even when they were pitched against high-end, expensive wines.
The No True Scotsman fallacy doesn't apply to conversations where the topic at hand is discussing what makes someone a Scotsman.
There are quite a few chefs who believe the best sushi is from fish that has been 'curing' in the cooler a few days.[1] not necessarily the freshest fish. That's because the fish takes on more flavors as it ages. The notion of fish needing to be fresh is more prevalent in north American than it is in Japan.
Remember, some of the first sushi quality fish were flown over in planes back in the early '70s as a way for JAL to make money on the cargo hold of their planes.
Many people might get sucked into watching a Marvel movie because it's a cultural phenomenon and the best executed form of super hero entertainment.
But only an enthusiast will find pour through the back issue bins looking for hidden gems.
>[If] you only like top-shelf sushi prepared by world renowned chefs....
>[If] you will only drink wine that you've read is good...
Both of those are examples of a second-handed appreciation for the subject matter. In the first case, the person is substituting pricing signals and reviewer opinions for their own independent judgement. In the second case, the person is not only substituting reviewer opinions for their own judgement, but also denying themselves even the opportunity to learn how to judge the subject.
An enthusiast or connoisseur is a person with a first-handed view of a subject. In order to develop a first-handed view, a broad understanding of the material, associated topics, and direct experience with the full breadth of a subject is necessary.
In the case of sushi, the enthusiast needs to understand the varying quality of sushi available, methods and techniques of preparation, the flavor profiles of fish, the effect of garnishes and sauces, and so forth. You can't appreciate great sushi until you understand bad/mediocre/good sushi.
In the case of wine, the enthusiast should have extensive experience with wines at many price points, understand the production methods, understand types of fermentation, know the various types of grapes, and so forth.
In my experience, enthusiasts for a specific topic are almost never snobs. I've met beer enthusiasts who don't necessarily enjoy common beers, but they are nevertheless in awe of the production process and uniform quality. I've met wine connoisseurs who dislike many $30 bottles but generally enjoy $2 wine from Trader Joes (aka two-buck-chuck).
I'll add the point that if all you've ever eaten is the best of the best, you don't really appreciate something as much as if you've experienced the middle or lower ends.
Anecdote: I dry age my own steaks, and I've realized that people don't really appreciate them as much as if they're eaten side by side with a "control" steak that's unaged.
It's pretty obvious most people are not either
If the post said "...if you CAN enjoy something across...spectrum..." it would be more accurate. You don't HAVE to enjoy something across a wide spectrum, you just have to be open to the possibility and have given it a try. If you aren't open then exclusion from 'connoisseur' etc is probably granted.
1. a person who imitates, cultivates, or slavishly admires social superiors and is condescending or overbearing to others.
2. a person who believes himself or herself an expert or connoisseur in a given field and is condescending toward or disdainful of those who hold other opinions or have different tastes regarding this field.
In the first case, a snob substitutes the views of the social elite for his own judgement. In the second case, a snob declares himself a member of the social elite because he holds different views. In both cases, what makes the person a snob is that they are not judging the material qua the material; indeed they are not concerned with the material at all. Instead, they are concerned with social advantage.
I'm not sure there is a word for someone who judges a subject based on the merits. An enthusiast?
I'm fine with that.
If you want to make "elites" a foundation for a definition, you might as well just roll both of those up into "bourgeois," thought #2 is arguably more "asshole."
For me, an enthusiast might be someone who finds reasons to be into something (the opposite of my def of snob), but I don't think there's a word for simply liking stuff that is good. "Not completely depressed," perhaps.