Comment by obviouslygreen | Hacker News Reader

Comment by obviouslygreen | Hacker News Reader

Nope! Wine isn't bullshit. Painfully overpriced anything is bullshit, but then that usually (as in this case) ends up being a matter of opinion.

I'm a fan of Scotch whiskey, and I think Johnny Walker Blue Label is usually worth the price. Would it be worth it to someone who doesn't already enjoy Scotch? Absolutely not; it'd taste like turpentine, and turpentine is cheap.

I'm also a fan of very dark beer. Is Young's Double Chocolate Stout bullshit? Sure as hell not to me, but my girlfriend would probably tell you it's awful shit, so clearly to her it is.

So much of so many things is subjective. This is one of them, and it's one of those times where your opinion, my opinion, and everyone else's opinion is worth exactly dick (and yet they're all worth exactly the same amount of dick). If you like it as much as the person who priced it, then yeah, perhaps it's worth it to you; if not, then yeah, it's bullshit. To you. Just don't try to declare that particular amount as an objective measurement. :)

>> So much of so many things is subjective.

Yes, but even subjective judgements are invalid if they're not based on objective differences.

If you reliably prefer white wines in blind tastings and I reliably prefer reds, that's valid. But if we both claim a preference but can't actually identify which is which, our preferences themselves are invalid.

Or at least, we've learned that our true preference is "I like the experience of tasting a wine that I have seen is X color."

Perhaps the truth is sometimes "I enjoy consuming something that I have been told is expensive." It would at least be enlightening to know that about ourselves.

Yes, but even subjective judgements are invalid if they're not based on objective differences.

I disagree here... subjectivity is intrinsically at odds with objectivity. They may sometimes work together (mostly in "I agree with you about this opinion for this reason that both of us can clearly observe"), but calling something subjective "invalid" is calling an opinion invalid. It can't be unless you've decided to have an opinion about a fact (e.g. "I have decided that this spoon, which is clearly silver, is actually copper").

Fair point, but I think there is an everyday common threshold we operate with, when an opinion strays too far from any objective characteristics, we say its dumb. It's not a hard and fast rule, but I think we all have some idea where that line is drawn.

>> subjectivity is intrinsically at odds with objectivity.

Maybe I wasn't clear? Suppose your opinion is "wines which are red (objective) are tastier (subjective)." If you cannot even identify red wines by taste, you clearly, provably, do not prefer the taste of red wines.

There may be something else about the visual experience, social prestige, etc that you like about drinking red wine, but as far as taste, you are fooling yourself. Your opinion about the taste is invalid in the sense that it isn't about what you claim it is.

In many domains, subjective ratings are highly correlated across human. For instance, there is such a thing as objective facial beauty: the beautiful faces are those rated as such by most humans (note: gender and sexual preferences matter). (Caveat: beauty vary across cultures.)

What's more interesting is determining which domains are highly correlated (human beauty in current western culture), and which are poorly so (blind wine taste). And that assessment can be backed by much more than uninformed personal opinion.

Unfortunately, this doesn't just touch on whether a thing can be judged in any specific capacity objectively. People "like" or "dislike" things for too many reasons to reason about them.

There's a sort of masochism in many of us that results in things that are slightly painful -- e.g. consuming capsaicin -- being pleasurable. Many people are also drawn to abnormalities in human and other physiques and other statistical oddities in nature for various reasons.

Then there are people who perceive the world differently (e.g. the colorblind, the blind, the deaf) who perceive the same things very differently and will thus have differently-formed subjective experiences of the same things as 'standard' humans.

Yes, subjective ratings can correlate. However, that does not mean they're any closer to objective, or any closer to validity or invalidity.

> Yes, subjective ratings can correlate. However, that does not mean they're any closer to objective...

Pure subjectivity means nobody else agrees. Pure objectivity means everybody else agrees.

There does seem to be some sort of difference between the beer world (and to a lesser extent scotch) and the wine world.

Not one single beer enthusiast is going to confuse a Rochefort with a Dogfish Head IPA. Doesn't matter what bottle it comes in, or if you are blindfolded or what. Same thing with Laphroaig and Dewers. There are simply different drinks.

Now it is entirely possible, probable even, that marketing, labeling and price has an effect on which beers or scotches you identify as good, but that's different from treating things that are indistinguishable as distinguishable.

Not one single cork dork is going to confuse a late harvest reisling with a dry sparkling wine with a chianti either and yet reliably once or twice a year some one brings up that oh hey look some people can be tricked into thinking an unspecific white is red, as if that were the only distinction between wines.

The thing I really like about beer culture is that it isn't price focused. There are a few niches of beer where the price starts to go up, but most beers are in the same ballpark price-wise.

Every culture has rules about how you wave your banner and show people how into that culture you are. With wine culture, it seems a lot of that is through price and rarity. With beer, that sometimes comes into play, but it's equally likely to be with IBU, darkness, or local expertise.

I'm not a fan of the hops-gamesmanship that goes on, but I do like that beer culture celebrates variety and small breweries as much as it does "famous", exclusive beers. For every Rochefort, there are ten Abitas, Lagunitases, etc. that are just as well loved.

Young's Double Chocolate Stout is both incredibly tasty and not particularly expensive (relative to other "craft" beers).

Hell yes. There was a place in the Twin Cities (and by some accounts there still is) that served it on tap... a whole pitcher of pitch black slightly-chocolately slightly-coffeeish gloriousness is a wonder to behold.

The Muddy Pig still exists.

I can't get into Young's Double Chocolate Stout. I like Brooklyn Black Chocolate Stout and Rogue Chocolate Stout, but those two are more pronounced in flavor. Samuel Smith's Chocolate Stout is like they melted a whole Hershey's bar in it or something, wasn't my thing, haha.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com