I think it’s fine to have that opinion, but usually there’s more context to it than that. My friend went to France with some people from his highschool class; rather than take advantage of the local cuisine, every evening his classmates would spend an equal (if not greater) amount of money on the much higher priced McDonalds fare.
Seemed pretty wrong to me.
That annoys me, too, but it seems to me like it’s ultimately none of my business. I wouldn’t want to date anyone who didn’t enjoy new foods, who wasn’t adventurous like that, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re a lesser person.
Daniel
Nothing to add at this point, and have to run out; but thanks to all for the good discussion.
I don’t see the point of arguing over matters of taste, unless we’ve answered the crucial question:
“BY WHAT STANDARDS?”
Yes, there are guidelines for things like aesthetic value and culinary quality and so forth, but they’re not universally established, and so they have to be mutually accepted by the parties to the argument.
Once the standards are agreed upon, either explicitly or (more often) by tacit shared recognition of similar perspectives and experience, the argument can be useful and enlightening.
For example, two beer aficionados with similarly developed appreciation for the qualities of beer could argue fiercely over whether Brew A is better than Brew B, and why. And one of them could even be right, by the standards they’re using, and could even persuade the other to change his/her opinion.
But it’s no use their trying to make their point to an inexperienced beer drinker who thinks that both brews taste equally horrible and that canned Budweiser is a much better beer. That person is simply not using the same standards they are, and it would be rude and pointless for the aficionados to insist that the other drinker is “wrong, incorrect or deficient”.
But that doesn’t mean that their own debate over Brew A versus Brew B was pointless, or that there’s no standard by which Brew A and Brew B could be compared. It’s just that the standard isn’t universal.
In fact, it may be more than mere opinion.
Studies now show that brand loyalty affects the brain in measurable ways. In short, if you believe Coke is “better” than Pepsi, then if you know you’re drinking Coke, you don’t just “think” it tastes better than Pepsi, it actually does taste better.
Specifically, the reward centers in your brain will have a stronger reaction when you drink Coke than when you drink Pepsi.
So if you have a strong affinity for McDonalds and not for Rathbun’s, it will taste better, in very real terms.
I thought there was a scholarly article posted on Science Daily, but I can’t find it. All I can find at the moment is this article . Will keep looking, or perhaps some otherdoper can find it.
I disagree, for the reasons stated in my above post.
To assume that standards must first be agreed upon, we must adopt a contractual stance, wherein adherence to an external standard becomes the benchmark.
But in adopting this stance, we would be denying the possibility that there may be something other than “standards” that has a stake in the quality game.
And if we accept “standards” which are “mutually accepted” as our benchmark, then we hand the whole game over to those who would situate themselves as arbiters, which inevitably results in an endlessly regressive (and ultimately arbitrary) argument over what those standards are to be.
I prefer to look at the human animal, see what makes him/her tick, because the issue at hand is, essentially, a question of whether we really have to appeal to “standards” or, on the other hand, there may actually be some other way of judging the matter.
And from what the brain studies are telling us, it does in fact seem to be the case that beauty, and taste, are in the eye and on the tongue and in the brain of the beholder.
In short, standards are the last refuge of the elitist.
One has to take craftsmanship into play as well. I appreciate different music for different reasons. For example, Opera is one of the single most difficult art forms to perform successfully. One needs to find a cast of singers with a considerable amount of training behind them. One needs to find an orchestra and conductor. One needs to either find, or compose a three hour production. One needs adequate facilitys. And finally, everyone has to perform near perfectly for 3 hours! One would think the odds of achieving such a result would make it impossible, but it happens. And when everything clicks, and you realize all of the elements coming into play, the impact on the listener is nothing less than breathtaking.
Some operas though are better than others, and by that account I can compare the better ones with lesser ones. Trying to compare opera though with another music form is pointless. They are simply too different. I look for different things in a pop tune than I do in a jazz tune, than I do in an opera.
I think the best way to think of taste is this: There are no right answers, only better informed ones.
So what?
What does difficulty have to do with it?
It would be extremly difficult to balance a bicycle on one’s chin while riding a unicycle across a balance beam and reciting the Gettysburgh address while being poked at by enraged chimpanzees armed with sharpened sticks. But what is that, other than a freak-show act?
Personally, I’m more moved by an off-key rendition of “Pancho and Lefty” by Townes Van Zandt in a noisy Texas bar.
And who are you to say that I’m wrong?
I am morally offended by picky eaters.
I don’t mind people who have a strong preference for a limited repetoire- most of the world fall under this catagory one way or another. But I do look down on people who will not try new foods, and who refuse to open themselves up to new food experiences. I look down on people who pretend like they have allergies that they don’t have (yeah, I know lots of people do have allergies and it could KILL you etc. etc. But I also know that during a study of people with MSG symptoms, the vast overwhelming majority didn’t exhibit any effects when they didn’t know the food had MSG in it.). I especially look down on people who let their food narrowness disrupt their social lives and infringe on the people around them, becoming a constant drag.
To me, this is limiting the human experience and therefore limiting the human potential- which some Puritan streak in me finds offensive. I think in order to fulfill yourself as a human, you need to push your own bounderies a bit, and open yourself up to what life has to offer. And being a picky eater just seems to be a bad sign to me. Sure, it may be a sign of some greater problem (depression, etc.) but shouldn’t you be working on that or at least acknowledging it rather than declaring proudly that you eat only food that can be found on a Denny’s menu?
I guess you missed the part where I said that you shouldn’t really try to compare certain art forms against one another. I said, what I look for in opera is craftsmanship because I think that is what it strives to represent. The great ennobling qualities it illustrates is because of the craftsmanship.
As well I didn’t say difficulty is a sole requirement, but that it is an important quality. And guess what, if the aforementioned freak show act you said were televised, it would be on a show called fear factor, which has many fans. Guess freak show acts of difficulty do have an audience.
Who said I’m wouldn’t be moved by an off-key rendition of a song? In a noisy texas bar that might be what I’m looking for, especially if I’m drunk.
Who are you to say that i’m wrong?
I recall from an undergrad course in comparative political philosophy, the utilitarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism) of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill was based on, among other things, the premise that “Push-pen is as good as poetry.” (Push-pen was an early 19th Century game, similar to pinball, a popular lower-class tavern entertainment.) IOW, pleasure is pleasure and there is no scale of values by which we can meaningfully say a refined and educated person’s enjoyment of poetry is any “higher” or “better” than a common man’s enjoyment of push-pen. The OP seems to be saying the same thing.
Ah, but the OP is a load of shit. 
My real views were different, but I couldn’t say why; LHoD and **Thudlow ** have helped me start figuring it out. Thanks to all for the help.
How do you know that so-called “picky eaters” haven’t tried the food in question, and found it lacking? Granted, most picky eaters don’t fall into that category, but sometimes you’ve got to give people the benefit of the doubt. For instance, I don’t eat salad. I’ve tried it, but lettuce makes me gag. Every single piece of lettuce I’ve ever eaten has made me gag. Should I continue trying to choke it down in order to expand my horizons? And that can be expanded to people who don’t enjoy Indian food, or chicken, or whatever. You can’t know that the “picky” eater hasn’t tried their averse food.
I am morally offended by foodies who spend obscene amounts of money on food. That goes double for people who spend money on food that can be made at home like steak, rather than something like sushi that most people cannot make. For that reason, I can respect the Wendy’s patron far more than the person eating at Denny’s, who I in turn can respect far more than the person eating a $20 hamburger at a four-star place. I’ve said it before on here: for me, the “good taste” of the four-star burger (might as well compare like to like) would be more than drowned out by the guilt I would feel at spending that much for what is really a very commonplace meal. I’ve had expensive meals in my time, probably many of them objectively “good,” but I can’t enjoy any of it, because usually that “better” stuff is more expensive and it makes me feel morally shady to partake in it. I can’t believe this point rarely comes up in these types of debates, and I can’t believe I’m the only person that takes this stance.
I don’t, and I don’t walk around judging people based on my beliefs. My boyfriend eats nearly exclusively steak, hamburgers, potatoes, bread and cheese. But he’ll try anything you put in front of him. I can respect that.
Frankly, davenportavenger, you seem to have some food issues. Just my two cents.
In what manner? I don’t have an eating disorder, if that’s what you’re implying. And I apply my ethics to things other than food.
I didn’t think you had an eating disorder, and I didn’t mean it as an insult, it’s just how I read your post. You seem to have negative attitudes about food. It’s not normal to associate eating good food with shame and guilt, as if people just don’t deserve better than mass-produced fast food. If you think it’s poor value, so be it. But it’s not about morality.
In Nashville there’s a touristy street by the convention center and the old opry. Tourists will go to this fancy-looking barbecue place and spend $15 for lunch, when across the street is one of the best joints in the world, a little hole in the wall, and the food is served on paper plates and the beer comes in cans. It’s much cheaper, and much better. If I see people going to the fancy place, I think they’re missing out. I think they’re getting poor value. But I don’t think they’re bad people.
Well, that’s where we differ. I certainly feel like a bad person when I’ve spent too much on something. It makes me sick to see wasted resources: money, food, medicine, etc. I don’t see it as normal to pretend like those aren’t bad things. But this is kind of getting away from the point of this thread; maybe I will compose a thread with this topic tomorrow, when I have more time.
I can understand why you might not want to spend that much on food, but where do morals come into it? I mean, you’re presumably going to pay for the four-star burger and tip the waitress proportionately, so other people benefit more than they would if you bought a cheap burger at Wendy’s, and nobody is harmed (except the cow, but the cow doesn’t care how much you pay for it).
If you’re in the habit of giving all your extra money away to charity, I can see why you might feel guilty, but most people aren’t going to do that anyway.
No.
It would be nice, simple, egalitarian, fashionable and otherwise pleasant to think that its all relative. The fact though is that its not.
Some things are truly better than other things. The fact that not everybody is sophisticated, interested, talented, or experienced enough to discern gradations of quality does not mean they don’t exist.
A McDonalds hamburger is a piece of shit. Liking it does not make it any less a piece of shit.