TN: Two Rinaldi Baroli and Pisca Port with Oliver

originally posted by VLM:

It just struck me that this whole thing is about how you explain beauty. For some of us, the striking beauty we can find in wine is irreducible. I think this is the take of the "artist types" for lack of a better term.

While I'm not a radical reductionist by any means, decomposing things into explanatory units doesn't make the whole less beautiful to me.

Then there is Joe, who thinks like I do but tries to pretend he doesn't.
Click to expand...
Crapola.

What a mean thing to say about a guy with a brain tumor.
 
originally posted by VLM:

It just struck me that this whole thing is about how you explain beauty. For some of us, the striking beauty we can find in wine is irreducible. I think this is the take of the "artist types" for lack of a better term.

While I'm not a radical reductionist by any means, decomposing things into explanatory units doesn't make the whole less beautiful to me.
Click to expand...

I think that the VLM is disrespectful of artist types.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
VLM,

You're not understanding a distinction doesn't mean it doesn't exists. If I designated my preferences with a set of symbols that you couldn't do mathematical computations with (say @#$%^, or for that matter, good, very good, lots of very good, etc.), then they would give you no statistical information. I am saying those things you see that look like numerals aren't really numerals but symbols like the ones in the above parentheses. You can do computations with the numerals they look like but your computations won't have any relationship to the evaluations those symbols convey because they aren't really numerals.
Click to expand...

I understand you. One can model nominal variables, too.
 
originally posted by Levi Dalton:
originally posted by VLM:

It just struck me that this whole thing is about how you explain beauty. For some of us, the striking beauty we can find in wine is irreducible. I think this is the take of the "artist types" for lack of a better term.

While I'm not a radical reductionist by any means, decomposing things into explanatory units doesn't make the whole less beautiful to me.
Click to expand...

I think that the VLM is disrespectful of artist types.
Click to expand...

I think I just get frustrated. I am constantly amazed by people with artistic gifts, as I have none of my own.
 
originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
originally posted by VLM:
I think this is the take of the "artist types" for lack of a better term.
Click to expand...

Please stop belaboring this, VLM. It's not very smart.

Or at least it takes things too seriously (though this whole thread is an exercise in that).
Click to expand...

I do take this seriously, though. Maybe that's not too smart.

I think the weird thing that stuck in people's craw w/r/t David from Switzerland was that what you could glean of his feelings for a wine from his tasting notes and the corresponding point score were out of whack. That was Eric T.'s thrust.
Click to expand...

Eric and I are making different points. I don't care if a wine has notes of cherries or whatever. I'm less and less interested in descriptors, I know what most of the wines are supposed to taste like. In that respect, what I am trying to point out is that the number conveys meaningful information. It gets richer and more meaningful the more you have of them in ways that the descriptions don't.

It's as though I wrote a pseudo-literary description of a beautiful, well-crafted wine and posted a picture of muddy gunk with dead flies in it.
Click to expand...

Well at least it wouldn't be pseudo-empirical.
 
originally posted by SFJoe:
originally posted by VLM:

It just struck me that this whole thing is about how you explain beauty. For some of us, the striking beauty we can find in wine is irreducible. I think this is the take of the "artist types" for lack of a better term.

While I'm not a radical reductionist by any means, decomposing things into explanatory units doesn't make the whole less beautiful to me.

Then there is Joe, who thinks like I do but tries to pretend he doesn't.
Click to expand...
Crapola.

What a mean thing to say about a guy with a brain tumor.
Click to expand...

You shouldn't get brain tumors or people will sully your reputation?
 
originally posted by VLM:
originally posted by Levi Dalton:
originally posted by VLM:

It just struck me that this whole thing is about how you explain beauty. For some of us, the striking beauty we can find in wine is irreducible. I think this is the take of the "artist types" for lack of a better term.

While I'm not a radical reductionist by any means, decomposing things into explanatory units doesn't make the whole less beautiful to me.
Click to expand...

I think that the VLM is disrespectful of artist types.
Click to expand...

I think I just get frustrated. I am constantly amazed by people with artistic gifts, as I have none of my own.
Click to expand...

I don't know, man. Some of those charts have a certain something...
 
From this discussion, one thing I am taking away is that the validity of using numerical ratings for wines (at least) is to some extent a value issue. In value issues, if you respect the folks you disagree with, you have to accord their views a fair amount of room, and blend contention with acceptance. I see this happening. Instructive thread.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
The only problem with points and wine remains the view of some of the givers of them ... that one is actually assigning numerals instead of communicating via signs that happen to look like numerals.
Click to expand...

I think you're wrong about respected people not being able to be dysrespectful, but I like the above insight a lot. It led me to thinking that if the Politburo set up a software device that automatically converted all points scores to words, all these niggardly point haters would have no problem no more! For 10 or 20 point scales, or letter grades, one need only adjust scalarly.

I suggest, with the command of the English language that only the detachment of a foreigner allows:

85 Good
86 Quite Good
87 Very Good
88 Extremely Good
89 Excellent
90 Superlative
91 Outstanding
92 Wonderful
93 Marvelous
94 Terrific
95 Fabulous
96 Amazing
97 Fantastic
98 Awesome
99 Unbelievable
100 Cowabunga
 
Oswaldo,
I hate to disagree with someone who is disagreeing with me, but I quite pointedly said that while respected people can be disrespectful (really too obvious to dispute), someone who respected wine (was respectful of wine)couldn't also disrespect wine. If you think that someone who respected wine might give wine scores, and your original message did say that you thought that could be so, then the point giver was respectful of wine and his action of giving scores could not, in some isolation from his respect, be disrespectful. Our argument, to the extent that there is one, is over whether actions, in isolation from the intentions of the actors, can have intentional qualities. I would say, as a matter of definition, that they cannot.

VLM,

Suppose instead of listing 90 after a score, David listed XC. And suppose he meant by that that he gave the wine "Xavier Cougat," which for him meant "very damned fine." And suppose he gave another wine LXXXV, which for him meant Lawrence Xavier Xavier Xavier Victor, which meant "I like this better than Roman numerals can express." After you had corrected your original impression that those Roman numeral looking things actually were Roman numerals, what would modeling the variables mean that would add to the meaning of the phrases?

To be clear, I am arguing that David might as well be using things that looked like Roman numerals but that stood for initials and that meant evaluative phrases, except he got rid of the middle man of initials.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Suppose instead of listing 90 after a score, David listed XC. And suppose he meant by that that he gave the wine "Xavier Cougat," which for him meant "very damned fine." And suppose he gave another wine LXXXV, which for him meant Lawrence Xavier Xavier Xavier Victor, which meant "I like this better than Roman numerals can express." After you had corrected your original impression that those Roman numeral looking things actually were Roman numerals, what would modeling the variables mean that would add to the meaning of the phrases?
Click to expand...

One technique (if you're feeling Googley) is multinomial logistic regression, which analyzes the probability of results falling in specific categories (e.g. Xavier Cougat vs. LXXXV and so on).

The standard econ example of this would be statistical analysis of whether commuters use cars, buses, trains, bicycles, etc. In political science we use this to analyze vote choice across multiple candidates. You can't classify those choices on an ordinal scale but you can determine the factors that lead people to choose the different forms of transportation or make their vote choice.

And yes, you can test for whether or not the Xavier Cougat categories are used consistently.
 
originally posted by Rahsaan:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Suppose instead of listing 90 after a score, David listed XC. And suppose he meant by that that he gave the wine "Xavier Cougat," which for him meant "very damned fine." And suppose he gave another wine LXXXV, which for him meant Lawrence Xavier Xavier Xavier Victor, which meant "I like this better than Roman numerals can express." After you had corrected your original impression that those Roman numeral looking things actually were Roman numerals, what would modeling the variables mean that would add to the meaning of the phrases?
Click to expand...

One technique (if you're feeling Googley) is multinomial logistic regression, which analyzes the probability of results falling in specific categories (e.g. Xavier Cougat vs. LXXXV and so on).

The standard econ example of this would be statistical analysis of whether commuters use cars, buses, trains, bicycles, etc. In political science we use this to analyze vote choice across multiple candidates. You can't classify those choices on an ordinal scale but you can determine the factors that lead people to choose the different forms of transportation or make their vote choice.

And yes, you can test for whether or not the Xavier Cougat categories are used consistently.
Click to expand...

Rahsaan about covers it.

And of course there are more complex versions (I'm thinking SEM here).
 
originally posted by VLM:
originally posted by Rahsaan:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Suppose instead of listing 90 after a score, David listed XC. And suppose he meant by that that he gave the wine "Xavier Cougat," which for him meant "very damned fine." And suppose he gave another wine LXXXV, which for him meant Lawrence Xavier Xavier Xavier Victor, which meant "I like this better than Roman numerals can express." After you had corrected your original impression that those Roman numeral looking things actually were Roman numerals, what would modeling the variables mean that would add to the meaning of the phrases?
Click to expand...

One technique (if you're feeling Googley) is multinomial logistic regression, which analyzes the probability of results falling in specific categories (e.g. Xavier Cougat vs. LXXXV and so on).

The standard econ example of this would be statistical analysis of whether commuters use cars, buses, trains, bicycles, etc. In political science we use this to analyze vote choice across multiple candidates. You can't classify those choices on an ordinal scale but you can determine the factors that lead people to choose the different forms of transportation or make their vote choice.

And yes, you can test for whether or not the Xavier Cougat categories are used consistently.
Click to expand...

Rahsaan about covers it.

And of course there are more complex versions (I'm thinking SEM here).
Click to expand...

We use it for the Internet all the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top