TN: Two Rinaldi Baroli and Pisca Port with Oliver

[Ian Fitzsimmons]

originally posted by Levi Dalton:
I remember '83 with a real fondness. It was in that year that someone, my father actually, explained to me that it would never ever, after December 31, be 1983 again. I remember I cried and cried. Somehow I felt like something was being broken that I desperately wanted to stay together. I didn't want it be 1984 already, maybe later, but not now. But there was nothing I could do.

The next day I went to elementary school and dutifully wrote my name in labored print blocks at the top of the ruled page. And for some reason, against any reasonable hope, underneath my name I wrote 01/01/83. Perhaps I was trying to cast a spell.

Numbers have a lot of power that way.

I guess the use of numbers can be a sincere effort to express oneself, or a sneaky effort to insinuate authority into a discussion, and thus a con.

I think it was the Mayans.

 

[Tom Glasgow]

what this thread needs is some serious drift off topic.

 

[David M. Bueker]

originally posted by Salil Benegal:

originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
Now drink some Bérèche Vallée de la Marne Rive Gauche, or some Prévost Closerie, or some Chartogne-Taillet Les Barres (franc de pied!).

Where might one find the Les Barres?

In the midst of statistical dissent Salil once again finds his catnip in franc de pied.

 

[Oswaldo Costa]

originally posted by VLM:

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
I’ve been grappling with how to chime in non-boorishly against points. I think I know where David is coming from, and respect his tenacity in hanging on to his position and the depth of experience that underlies it. My sense is that the scoring mentality, in society in general, is a legacy of sports, where it is not only appropriate, but part of the, well, point. It may also be a legacy of statistical thinking, which only increases the merit of the scientists and statistician here who don’t mix tracks. In education, i.e., grading papers, it may well be a necessary evil, but the profs on this side of the Atlantic have also foresworn points. In the cultural fields, I think it is demeaning to the object of our affection to grade it numerically. We wouldn’t think to use point scores for a novel, a play, a symphony, a ballet, and I think it is equally reductive to do so with wine (if we can agree that wine is culture). I agree with David that, consciously or unconsciously, we are constantly assessing the value of our experiences, but evaluation is not the same as awarding points, which I find disrespectful of complexity.

I think that's bullshit.

As you say, you most certainly are making judgments about quality, you just don't want to have it in a way where you can't argue around having made that judgment.

We all know that a scalar drastically oversimplifies a very complex interaction; however, to say it contains no information is as wrongheaded as saying it is axiomatic.

Dismount.

Fuck you, monkey (Baratin) brain, where did I say that it contains no information. It contains misinformation. At least learn to read before you write, godammit.

 

[Joel Stewart]

Hey, cut him some slack, Oswaldo. Statisticians have to drink too.

 

[Sharon Bowman]

No way, Joel! I am totally grooving on the expletive-laden Oswaldo. C'mon, we're munching popcorn over here.

 

[Joel Stewart]

true true

it is great when expletive non-laden types lay down some big fukkin tracks. Oswaldo just needs permission, but David (or Eric)....woh!

The enemy is closer to one's thinking than one knows

 

[VLM]

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
Fuck you, monkey (Baratin) brain, where did I say that it contains no information. It contains misinformation. At least learn to read before you write, godammit.

Fuck yourself. Everything has an error term.

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
I’ve been grappling with how to chime in non-boorishly against points. I think I know where David is coming from, and respect his tenacity in hanging on to his position and the depth of experience that underlies it. My sense is that the scoring mentality, in society in general, is a legacy of sports, where it is not only appropriate, but part of the, well, point.

Indeed, it is. I can't draw, paint, sing, play piano, or anything else like that. I could take a hell of a set piece and feed the crease, though.

It may also be a legacy of statistical thinking, which only increases the merit of the scientists and statistician here who don’t mix tracks.

I don't know what "mix-tracks" means. Statistics are important to the extent you cannot experimentally control for things and you have a hypothesis you want to test.

In education, i.e., grading papers, it may well be a necessary evil, but the profs on this side of the Atlantic have also foresworn points.

I don't know what this means and what evidence you have for it.

I see no evidence at all of instructors foreswearing points. In fact, and in what I see as a positive development, many more tests are real and multiple choice, leading to better evaluation or understanding and ability.

I take the grading of free-hand or essay answers with a grain of salt. I certainly believe that properly trained experts, if paying attention, get it right most of the time. Since they are judging to a standard (that is a mix of the subjective and objective) I'll take their points.

In the cultural fields, I think it is demeaning to the object of our affection to grade it numerically. We wouldn’t think to use point scores for a novel, a play, a symphony, a ballet, and I think it is equally reductive to do so with wine (if we can agree that wine is culture).

Sure we could. Given the right information and enough of it, I (with some help from my test theorist buddies) could come up with a scalar score that pretty well tracked quality. Would it agree with everyone's quality score all of the time, no. But that isn't the point, is it.

I agree with David that, consciously or unconsciously, we are constantly assessing the value of our experiences, but evaluation is not the same as awarding points, which I find disrespectful of complexity.

Disrespectful. Interesting term and probably the one that set off mt bullshit-o-meter.

The fact of the matter is that David is putting out a judgment, something we all do if we think critically about wine at all, in a manner that lays it out. You can read his descriptions too, if you want.

To me it isn't any less valueable than the psuedo-literary tasting notes lots of folks also like to write.

I may enjoy reading those too. I mean, when I learn to read.

 

[Levi Dalton]

originally posted by VLM:

...the psuedo-literary tasting notes lots of folks also like to write.

Oh yeah, there are just so many of them out there. There's, well, there's, I mean, just so many. It's really tough to wade through, there are so many.

 

[VLM]

originally posted by Levi Dalton:

originally posted by VLM:

...the psuedo-literary tasting notes lots of folks also like to write.

Oh yeah, there are just so many of them out there. There's, well, there's, I mean, just so many. It's really tough to wade through, there are so many.

Some can be lovely, some eye rolling. But that goes for everything, doesn't it?

That's why I rarely re-read what I write. I might vomit.

 

[Cliff]

originally posted by VLM:

I see no evidence at all of instructors foreswearing points. In fact, and in what I see as a positive development, many more tests are real and multiple choice, leading to better evaluation or understanding and ability.

Now wait just a second. Seriously. I certainly haven't given up on point scoring for my day job and don't see how I could. But the idea that multiple choice tests lead to a better evaluation of understanding and ability is a bit much. You must be trolling. The "outcomes assessment" industry has banned the word "Verstehen" from our collective vocabulary because they have no metric to measure it. I thought that's what we were doing when we assigned grades, but apparently not.

 

[Cliff]

originally posted by VLM:

I see no evidence at all of instructors foreswearing points. In fact, and in what I see as a positive development, many more tests are real and multiple choice, leading to better evaluation or understanding and ability.

Now wait just a second. Seriously. I certainly haven't given up on point scoring for my day job and don't see how I could. But the idea that multiple choice tests lead to a better evaluation of understanding and ability is a bit much. You must be trolling. The "outcomes assessment" industry has banned the word "Verstehen" from our collective vocabulary because they have no metric to measure it. I thought that's what we were doing when we assigned grades, but apparently not.

 

[VLM]

originally posted by Cliff:

originally posted by VLM:

I see no evidence at all of instructors foreswearing points. In fact, and in what I see as a positive development, many more tests are real and multiple choice, leading to better evaluation or understanding and ability.

Now wait just a second. Seriously. I certainly haven't given up on point scoring for my day job and don't see how I could. But the idea that multiple choice tests lead to a better evaluation of understanding and ability is a bit much. You must be trolling. The "outcomes assessment" industry has banned the word "Verstehen" from our collective vocabulary because they have no metric to measure it. I thought that's what we were doing when we assigned grades, but apparently not.

No, I'm serious. If you have the care and budget to devise good items, multiple choice tests are an excellent way of evaluating understanding and ability.

I don't expect any ability test to explain 100% of the variance in something, but the folks who do testing and measurement for a living do a pretty damn good job.

It's sort of like the SAT, you can be really smart and maybe not do well, but you can't be not smart and do really well.

I don't know what Verstehen is, but Europeans (especially the Dutch) have tended to bet on the wrong horses in test theory (Rasch model).

But all this is tangential. My more general point is that we are all evaluating, putting a number is information and to think that something is so precious that it cannot be evaluated in a meaningful, rational way, just because it hasn't, is just silly, IMO.

Just because it's hard doesn't mean it's impossible.

If it were easy, French Lit majors would do it (just kidding sweetheart).

 

[Cliff]

Verstehen means "understanding."

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

Multiple choice tests test whether one knows a bunch of things. I completely understand why statisticians think that that is the only thing worth calling knowledge, but the question isn't closed.

If one wishes, as Cliff might, to teach historical analysis, as opposed to making sure one's students know when the battle of Waterloo took place, one has to make them engage in that analysis until they get the hang of it. Multiple choice tests just won't do that. They only test whether one knows the outcome of some analysis or whether one knows the right answer to some factual question regarding analytical method, which is hardly the same thing.

These aren't competing forms of testing but complementary ones. Arguing over which is better is trolling.

 

[Ian Fitzsimmons]

originally posted by Levi Dalton:

originally posted by VLM:

...the psuedo-literary tasting notes lots of folks also like to write.

Oh yeah, there are just so many of them out there. There's, well, there's, I mean, just so many. It's really tough to wade through, there are so many.

I can think of at least three, without trying. At least one of them is a good friend of Nathan's.

Surprising how much interest and feeling is stirred up by this perennial subject.

 

[Oswaldo Costa]

originally posted by VLM:

It may also be a legacy of statistical thinking, which only increases the merit of the scientists and statistician here who don’t mix tracks.

I don't know what "mix-tracks" means.

These gents don't mix methodologies; they apply quantitative analysis as demanded by their professions, but spare wine the ignominy.

originally posted by VLM:

In education, i.e., grading papers, it may well be a necessary evil, but the profs on this side of the Atlantic have also foresworn points.

I don't know what this means and what evidence you have for it.

I see no evidence at all of instructors foreswearing points.

The prof on the other side of the Atlantic is David, who uses points. The profs on this side of the Atlantic are several (Mark, Jonathan, Cliff, Rahsaan), none of whom use points.

originally posted by VLM:

In the cultural fields, I think it is demeaning to the object of our affection to grade it numerically. We wouldn’t think to use point scores for a novel, a play, a symphony, a ballet, and I think it is equally reductive to do so with wine (if we can agree that wine is culture).

Sure we could. Given the right information and enough of it, I (with some help from my test theorist buddies) could come up with a scalar score that pretty well tracked quality. Would it agree with everyone's quality score all of the time, no. But that isn't the point, is it.

A utilitarian pipe dream.

originally posted by VLM:

I agree with David that, consciously or unconsciously, we are constantly assessing the value of our experiences, but evaluation is not the same as awarding points, which I find disrespectful of complexity.

Disrespectful. Interesting term and probably the one that set off mt bullshit-o-meter.

Funny how specific words can annoy, like little apoplectic hot buttons.

originally posted by VLM:
The fact of the matter is that David is putting out a judgment, something we all do if we think critically about wine at all, in a manner that lays it out. You can read his descriptions too, if you want.

I have no problem with David putting out a judgment, I have a problem when a part of that judgment takes the form of a number. It's reductive, and, yes, disrespectful of something I know he loves and respects.

originally posted by VLM:
To me it isn't any less valueable than the psuedo-literary tasting notes lots of folks also like to write.

Guilty as (maybe) charged, but consistent with my utter subjectivity, I don't climax my bagatelles with point scores.

 

[Jeff Grossman]

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
I have no problem with David putting out a judgment, I have a problem when a part of that judgment takes the form of a number. It's reductive, and, yes, disrespectful of something I know he loves and respects.

How do you know that? This sounds rather like you projecting your feelings onto David.

 

[SFJoe]

originally posted by Jeff Grossman:

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
I have no problem with David putting out a judgment, I have a problem when a part of that judgment takes the form of a number. It's reductive, and, yes, disrespectful of something I know he loves and respects.

How do you know that? This sounds rather like you projecting your feelings onto David.

Not to speak of anyone in this conversation, but there is certainly a substantial body of opinion out there that numbers are disrespectful. A caviste of my long acquaintance has the view that you are allowed to assign numbers to industrial wines but not to artisanal wines for this reason, as one data point.

 

[Oswaldo Costa]

originally posted by Jeff Grossman:

originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
I have no problem with David putting out a judgment, I have a problem when a part of that judgment takes the form of a number. It's reductive, and, yes, disrespectful of something I know he loves and respects.

How do you know that? This sounds rather like you projecting your feelings onto David.

Alas, always a possibility, but I genuinely get this impression, but only from his words.