You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Pox'd Chidaine
- Thread starter MLipton
- Start date
Jayson Cohen
Jayson Cohen
originally posted by Rahsaan:
originally posted by Jayson Cohen:
It’s not a question of professional experience or aptitude.
Have you ever looked at cellartracker?
Yes. I look at Keith’s notes on occasion. Seth’s too. But I don’t see the relevance.
Understanding statistics and its challenges does not make one immune from those challenges when one serves as a statistical data point.
Jayson Cohen
Jayson Cohen
originally posted by Rahsaan:
originally posted by Jayson Cohen:
It’s not a question of professional experience or aptitude.
Have you ever looked at cellartracker?
Yes. I look at Keith’s notes on occasion. Seth’s too. But I don’t see the relevance.
Understanding statistics and its challenges does not make one immune from those challenges when one’s observations serve as statistical data points.
Jayson Cohen
Jayson Cohen
originally posted by Rahsaan:
For me, cellatracker shows the wide variance in reliability of tasting notes. For wines that you know, some people will accurately diagnose how it showed and other people will write some wild stuff. Some self-reports are more reliable than others.
I agree with this 100%. It’s a different but important point that we don’t have a grounded statistical distribution to compare one’s own experiences with the norm. But I think that only exacerbates or at least highlights the potential to consider one’s own experience as truth and dismiss other people’s observations (trusted or not) as wrong.
Jeff Grossman
Jeff Grossman
As we all have different genetic equipment, I find that I must discard certain reviews because they don't resemble my experience in the least! (Note that I don't say it's wrong but it isn't relevant for decision-making for my consumption.)originally posted by Jayson Cohen:
It’s a different but important point that we don’t have a grounded statistical distribution to compare one’s own experiences with the norm. But I think that only exacerbates or at least highlights the potential to consider one’s own experience as truth and dismiss other people’s observations (trusted or not) as wrong.
In point of fact, far more troublesome to winnow are the reviews that are adjacent to my experience.
Ian Fitzsimmons
Ian Fitzsimmons
Ja. Same here.
Tonight was a lovely bottle of 2017 Chidaine Montlouis Les Bournais. Ripe multi-faceted fruit that is golden and sunny but also focused and mineral fresh, with good grip and the chalky woolly chenin elements lurking in the background. A lot going on and all showing very well. Perfect before, with and after the leek omelette.
Much more expressive than a bottle from earlier this year, but I have no idea how it will age. Still, happy to drink more now!
Much more expressive than a bottle from earlier this year, but I have no idea how it will age. Still, happy to drink more now!
Ian Fitzsimmons
Ian Fitzsimmons
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
As I said to Nathan, I am, of course, aware of problems about self-reporting. One of my pet peeves, more on another bored but here too, is dismissing reports one does not like with concepts like bias confirmations and the unreliability of self-reporting. One is either willing to apply these concepts to one's own experiences or one should not apply them at all in debate, as it's an obvious example of poisoning the waters. And one should certainly be very wary of applying them to all experiences that run counter to one's own as that way your own beleifs cannot be falsified. I wasn't contesting Nathan's use of the concept of unreliable self-reporting, only is contradictory way of applying it.
I'm inclined to disagree, where self-reporting is concerned. It seems to me that an individual trained in the discipline of statistical sampling and analysis will self-report with substantially less error and bias - if not perfectly - than one not so trained.
Christian Miller (CMM)
Christian Miller
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
As I said to Nathan, I am, of course, aware of problems about self-reporting. One of my pet peeves, more on another bored but here too, is dismissing reports one does not like with concepts like bias confirmations and the unreliability of self-reporting. One is either willing to apply these concepts to one's own experiences or one should not apply them at all in debate, as it's an obvious example of poisoning the waters. And one should certainly be very wary of applying them to all experiences that run counter to one's own as that way your own beleifs cannot be falsified. I wasn't contesting Nathan's use of the concept of unreliable self-reporting, only is contradictory way of applying it.
I'm inclined to disagree, where self-reporting is concerned. It seems to me that an individual trained in the discipline of statistical sampling and analysis will self-report with substantially less error and bias - if not perfectly - than one not so trained.
This is an empirical question. Since behavioral economics are now more respected, fashionable and sometimes funded, there may even be a study on it. Or the related theory behind expert-based polling.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
As I said to Nathan, I am, of course, aware of problems about self-reporting. One of my pet peeves, more on another bored but here too, is dismissing reports one does not like with concepts like bias confirmations and the unreliability of self-reporting. One is either willing to apply these concepts to one's own experiences or one should not apply them at all in debate, as it's an obvious example of poisoning the waters. And one should certainly be very wary of applying them to all experiences that run counter to one's own as that way your own beleifs cannot be falsified. I wasn't contesting Nathan's use of the concept of unreliable self-reporting, only is contradictory way of applying it.
I'm inclined to disagree, where self-reporting is concerned. It seems to me that an individual trained in the discipline of statistical sampling and analysis will self-report with substantially less error and bias - if not perfectly - than one not so trained.
On what do you base this claim? Philosophically, it has no ground. But perhaps there is some empirical evidence? My own experience (of others, because analogy has taught me the opposite of your claim), is that we are always blind to our own blindnesses. But, of course, my own experience is anecdotal.
Ian Fitzsimmons
Ian Fitzsimmons
It seems a reasonable expectation, based on my knowledge of people and how they work. A conscientious, knowledgable reporter will train him/herself to test own opinions against external indicators (albeit possibly heuristic ones) before expressing them, in order to improve the likelihood they are accurate. Ive read a few of Nathan's messages over the years and am comfortable putting him in the conscientious category.
I don't know what you mean when you refer to philosophy. My experience varies from yours, and reasonable people can disagree.
Christian - the only behavioral economics studies I've read have been done with students as subjects, and the statistically-trained students did not seem to be especially astute. But I think a mature professional. mindful of his/her reputation, would likely do better. Granted, however, I am apt to be somewhat naive in such assessments.
I don't know what you mean when you refer to philosophy. My experience varies from yours, and reasonable people can disagree.
Christian - the only behavioral economics studies I've read have been done with students as subjects, and the statistically-trained students did not seem to be especially astute. But I think a mature professional. mindful of his/her reputation, would likely do better. Granted, however, I am apt to be somewhat naive in such assessments.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
The logic is straighforward: if the unreliablility of self-reporting is a universal element of human beings, than we are none of us immune and self-awareness would be no more a protection than the awareness that a bullet through the heart would kill us could stop it from doing so. If self-awareness can be a protection, then you are a describing weaknesss that sometimes but not always befalls us. In that case, if you think you have learned to deal with that weakness, in a debate you owe the same courtesy to your opponent (reasonable people can disagree), which entails not writing off their views with a concept that you do not apply to yourself.
And, yes, my experience is different. We can and often do arrive at the truth. But rarely by ourselves and never, so we know it, without the external verification of others. That is why reasonable people debate and do their opponents the courtesy of not writing of what they say. I note that lawyers are not encouraged to represent themselves, doctors do not treat themselves, scholars do not review their own work, etc., etc.
By the way, my point always was not that Nathan's views were untrustworthy but that he was wrong to write of those view he disagreed with as not worthy of the same consideration as he expected for his own.
And, yes, my experience is different. We can and often do arrive at the truth. But rarely by ourselves and never, so we know it, without the external verification of others. That is why reasonable people debate and do their opponents the courtesy of not writing of what they say. I note that lawyers are not encouraged to represent themselves, doctors do not treat themselves, scholars do not review their own work, etc., etc.
By the way, my point always was not that Nathan's views were untrustworthy but that he was wrong to write of those view he disagreed with as not worthy of the same consideration as he expected for his own.
Ian Fitzsimmons
Ian Fitzsimmons
With due respect, Jonathan, I feel the analysis in your first para is excessively formal for the wee denizens of wine-board-world.
Trained statisticians are few and far between and my personal reading over the years of a certain number of wine board posts strongly suggests that they aren't over-represented in this domain. I would cheerfully bet money that Nathan's (and perhaps your) self-reporting is very substantially more accurate, tested against independent measures, than would be that of a random sample of chimers-in here or at, say, Berserkers. It seems reasonable to imagine that self-reporting reliability would also increase, generally, the more experienced a taster the reporter is, particularly apropos specific matters like corkedness and oxidation.
There's an aspect of peril and emotion involved in medical and legal services that is absent from the realm of wine tasting (for the most part). Nathan's personality in toto aside, in this matter, personally, I think a bit of presumption is apt. FWIW, YMMV.
Trained statisticians are few and far between and my personal reading over the years of a certain number of wine board posts strongly suggests that they aren't over-represented in this domain. I would cheerfully bet money that Nathan's (and perhaps your) self-reporting is very substantially more accurate, tested against independent measures, than would be that of a random sample of chimers-in here or at, say, Berserkers. It seems reasonable to imagine that self-reporting reliability would also increase, generally, the more experienced a taster the reporter is, particularly apropos specific matters like corkedness and oxidation.
There's an aspect of peril and emotion involved in medical and legal services that is absent from the realm of wine tasting (for the most part). Nathan's personality in toto aside, in this matter, personally, I think a bit of presumption is apt. FWIW, YMMV.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
I think at the level of logical contrzdiction-- VLMs more than yours-- you are really not responding to what I said, or, at least, I can 't see more than simple denial. But the real evasion is to what I keep saying is the main issue, which is not about the protocols of objectivity and their consequences but the ways of productive debate: you either take athe statements of your opponents the same way you want your own statements to be taken, as rational, good faith arguments, to be refuted by reason or counter- evidence or you are not arguing in good faith, and that is without regard to your professional achievements. Since Nathan has long since dropped this debate, however, I will henceforth adopt his wise self-constraint.
Oswaldo Costa
Oswaldo Costa
On the occasional subject of 2014 Chidaine, yesterday Chris Kissack posted the following on Facebook over a picture of 2014 Chidaine Bouchet:
The most exciting thing about 2024? Getting to come back to the 2014 vintage in the Loire at ten years of age, ripe fruit simmering with mouth-watering acidity. Superb!
The most exciting thing about 2024? Getting to come back to the 2014 vintage in the Loire at ten years of age, ripe fruit simmering with mouth-watering acidity. Superb!
Oswaldo Costa
Oswaldo Costa
Tonight a 2014 Chidaine Breuil was, for the first time, a touch oxidized. Not enough to prevent consumption (i.e., Selosse level), bit a break from my experience of this vintage over the last six years or so.
. Interesting. CT tells me that I have a bottle of this left in the cellar. After my recent good experience with a bottle of the ‘14 Les Choisilles, I should probably give this a whirl.originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
Tonight a 2014 Chidaine Breuil was, for the first time, a touch oxidized. Not enough to prevent consumption (i.e., Selosse level), bit a break from my experience of this vintage over the last six years or so.
Mark Lipton