TN: Two Rinaldi Baroli and Pisca Port with Oliver

The whole "disrespectful to wine" thing is so completely ridiculous and self indulgent. Obviously David has the utmost respect for wine. Who the fuck cares how he chooses to quantify his experience. Seriously, this does not merit a 4 page thread.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
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.
Click to expand...

You're saying that one either respects something or one doesn't, so one can't respect something and, at the same time, be disrespectful. But respect is a human feeling and, as such, subject to contradictions and inconsistencies. It's commonplace to respect something for the most part and simultaneously do something, perhaps unwittingly, inconsistent with that respect.

On a tangent: Eric's original complaint was that a certain point score was inconsistent with the words. I think David did a good job of explaining why, according to his usage, that was not inconsistent. My (additional) complaint is that the reductive nature of point scores is inconsistent with respect. If David Schildknecht is required by his employer to award point scores despite his inclinations, he has no choice (other than quitting), but I can't understand why someone who is not required to do so would do so when he can, instead, use words like awesome and fabulous, that at least don't have the pretense of precision.
 
I see respect in this fashion:

substation.jpg
Someone took the time to carve into stone the heading above this doorway. Perhaps foolishly, they thought that this would be a forever sort of statement, that this building was important, that it would always serve this function, and that other people would find it helpful to know about the purpose of this place. This person spent time on that heading, they presented it artfully, there is a design, there is clarity, and there are levels. It wasn't a castoff, it was meant to be around awhile, to be done well, and there was effort put into it.

Unfortunately, in my view, the effort was not respected. It was forgotten about, it was obscured, and it was passed by without a thought by most everyone. No one put in the corresponding effort to realize what had been wrought. Nobody thought, gee, that's nice that somebody spent some time on that to try to make it special. It was almost like instead, somebody purposely put that pipe there to hide the work on the wall.

But that pipe is not representative, to me, of the sometimes dismissive and sometimes damning internet wine commentary. To me that is the graffiti on the wall. Not uninteresting on its own, but not respectful or helpful either. And usually repetitive.

Which is not to say that David's analysis, which is usually quite measured and lengthy, is disrespectful, as I don't think that David's commentary is disrespectful.

But I do think there is a difference between respect and disrespect, and I do think that this distinction is worth noting, and I don't think that asking for respect is an assault on people's freedom or something, which is how some folks seem to take it.

I am a fan of respect because I think it leads to a longer lifespan for things worth keeping around, and I think it encourages effort.
 
I think this is actually the first internet thread I've read that makes me wonder what somebody put in my coffee today. I see it all so clearly now. Just trying to decide if this is more psilocybin-esque or purple microdot.

I can't say anything about numbers....they don't piss me off. At least David's numbers don't.
 
originally posted by Joel Stewart:
I think this is actually the first internet thread I've read that makes me wonder what somebody put in my coffee today. I see it all so clearly now. Just trying to decide if this is more psilocybin-esque or purple microdot.

I can't say anything about numbers....they don't piss me off. At least David's numbers don't.
Click to expand...

Look on the bright side Joel - in 2-3 years this whole thread will be replayed for your enjoyment.
 
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...

So if you found out that David, say, gave out Xavier Cougats 20% of the time and RP gave out Xavier Cougat 18% of the time, what would you conclude about what they thought of wines when they thought it was very damned fine.

With regard to VLM's claim that you could test for consistency, how would one do that unless one had a background measurement with regard to the wines being evaluated? I suppose one might find that Parker gave out more Xavier Cougats to CdPs than to Loire reds, but I doubt that conclusion would be worth the work of the figuring. One might also find that Parker has given out more straight Cougats since 2000 than prior to that (as numbers of people have)without having persuasive evidence either that he had become an easier evaluator or that wine was getting better (according to whatever criteria one was using to judge betterness).

To be clear, I do not doubt the value of statistical analysis and I do not doubt that everything can be designated in such a way as to make statistical analysis possible. And the practice of giving numeral looking like designations to wines certainly encourages the sense that statistics could tell you something. I do doubt that statistical analysis always yields interesting results.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:

So if you found out that David, say, gave out Xavier Cougats 20% of the time and RP gave out Xavier Cougat 18% of the time, what would you conclude about what they thought of wines when they thought it was very damned fine.

With regard to VLM's claim that you could test for consistency, how would one do that unless one had a background measurement with regard to the wines being evaluated?
Click to expand...

In the type of analysis that I was imagining, you would have lots of data about both the taster and the wine. I.E. the taster's historical experience with wine, how frequently the taster has tasted the specific wine in question, how many times the taster has visited vineyards, whether the wine was tasted with food/what kind of food, whatever. You would also have lots of data about the wine, technical measurements, vineyard data, elevage data, other Points (if you like), etc etc.

You then look at what combination of factors make the taster more likely to put wines in a specific category.

I think VLM believes that there is some underlying objective basis to people placing wines in certain categories. I think it may be more complicated than that. But it all depends how rich the dataset is.
 
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
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.
Click to expand...

You're saying that one either respects something or one doesn't, so one can't respect something and, at the same time, be disrespectful. But respect is a human feeling and, as such, subject to contradictions and inconsistencies. It's commonplace to respect something for the most part and simultaneously do something, perhaps unwittingly, inconsistent with that respect.
Click to expand...

Another perspective which might help is is that no disrespect might be intended by an action but it might be perceived as such by someone else.

Is such an action disrespectful? One might argue that if disrespect is either intended or perceived then the action is disrespectful. But one might equally argue that if it is either not intended or not perceived as such then it is not disrespectful. And the latter stance leads to lower blood pressure.
 
originally posted by Rahsaan:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:

So if you found out that David, say, gave out Xavier Cougats 20% of the time and RP gave out Xavier Cougat 18% of the time, what would you conclude about what they thought of wines when they thought it was very damned fine.

With regard to VLM's claim that you could test for consistency, how would one do that unless one had a background measurement with regard to the wines being evaluated?
Click to expand...

In the type of analysis that I was imagining, you would have lots of data about both the taster and the wine. I.E. the taster's historical experience with wine, how frequently the taster has tasted the specific wine in question, how many times the taster has visited vineyards, whether the wine was tasted with food/what kind of food, whatever. You would also have lots of data about the wine, technical measurements, vineyard data, elevage data, other Points (if you like), etc etc.

You then look at what combination of factors make the taster more likely to put wines in a specific category.

I think VLM believes that there is some underlying objective basis to people placing wines in certain categories. I think it may be more complicated than that. But it all depends how rich the dataset is.
Click to expand...

I think you think that even in the form of "Xavier Cougat," that designation was essentially indexical, pointing to something, even if something subjective, that was there. I guess evaluations like "very darned nice wine, that" might be taken that way. And when David and Parker say their version of "Xavier Cougat," they seem to mean that. But I'm not sure that wine evaluations are that kind of thing. So, with regard to tasting the same wine, knowing how it was made and what in it the taster was identifying, etc., if the taster one time gave it and Xavier Cougat and the next time gave it a Lawrence Xavier, Xavier, Xavier, that might mean the wine tasted differently, the wine tasted differently to him, he was in a different mood, he changed his mind at that moment about what Xavier Cougat meant with regard to whatever criteria he used to judge, etc. etc. Likewise, consistent evaluating (let's say for argument that David and Parker do rate consistently and based on knowledge of vineyard, elevage, etc.)might still have varying causes.

But let's stipulate that you could test statistically for consistency--since you can see it, probably you can--I still don't know what the consistency would tell you about these evaluations.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
if the taster one time gave it and Xavier Cougat and the next time gave it a Lawrence Xavier, Xavier, Xavier, that might mean the wine tasted differently, the wine tasted differently to him, he was in a different mood, he changed his mind at that moment about what Xavier Cougat meant with regard to whatever criteria he used to judge, etc. etc. Likewise, consistent evaluating (let's say for argument that David and Parker do rate consistently and based on knowledge of vineyard, elevage, etc.)might still have varying causes.
Click to expand...

And given the right dataset, you could answer these questions and specify all these causes. That's all VLM is saying.
 
And lest you think this is too fanciful, people study these exact types of questions (about perceptions, moods, evaluations, etc) in other wings of your university.

And there is a growing trend to apply it to wine. I think this has been posted here before: http://www.wine-economics.org/
 
originally posted by Rahsaan:
And lest you think this is too fanciful, people study these exact types of questions (about perceptions, moods, evaluations, etc) in other wings of your university.

And there is a growing trend to apply it to wine. I think this has been posted here before: http://www.wine-economics.org/
Click to expand...

I know they study these things, and I know they learn valuable and meaningful things by doing so. I question whether what they learn tells us about evaluating wine, as opposed to telling us about what kinds of things we do when we make evaluative statements.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
originally posted by Rahsaan:
At the risk of more driftAnd this distinction is important to you because?
Click to expand...

Because it's the one we were originally discussing when we were discussing how to take David's scores?
Click to expand...

Well, to tell you the truth, I don't explicitly focus on those psychological mechanisms in my own work, so the distinct doesn't grab me. But there are certainly plenty of people doing brain research to examine the difference between how our brain functions and what we say about our experiences.

I'm more likely to look at the connection between what we say about our experiences and what we actually do. Which I suppose in this case would involve our stated evaluations of wine and our wine purchases/drinking practices.

Anyway, there's a lot of knowledge out there in this world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top