Slightly off topic, but this question reminded me…
My niece said she only liked Coke, and didn’t like Pepsi. I asked, can you actually taste the difference? Yes, she said.
So I designed a double-blind taste test. I got a can of Coke and a can of Pepsi and 6 identical glasses. I poured a small amount of Coke and Pepsi in random glasses. Just to spice things up a little, I poured both Coke and Pepsi in one of the 6 glasses.
My niece and another person were isolated while I did this. After pouring the soda, I isolated myself and my niece the other person went and did the test. My niece tasted each glass, and the other person wrote down her choices.
When they were done, they called me and we compared their written-down choices to my written-down values.
The result: she correctly identified all of the Coke samples, all of the Pepsi samples, and even said “there’s something wrong” with the sample that mixed both Coke and Pepsi.
Well, I think the point that Cooks Illustrated, McGee, et al. were trying to make is that if you heat your high quality extra virgin olive oil up, saute some chicken breasts in it, and make what’s left in the pan into your sauce for Chicken Piccata, you are unlikely to tell that you used say… California Olive Ranch as that extra-virgin olive oil or if you used regular, non-virgin Pompeiian olive oil.
Same thing tends to go for other aromatic foods and beverages used in cooking and baking. I sort of doubt that a red wine pan sauce made with Barolo would be materially better than one made with 2-Buck Chuck, because all of the aromatic compounds and nuances that make a Barolo what it is are driven off by heat.
That’s not to say you should use the very cheapest possible, but that there’s little reason to go overboard.
My silly bar trick was being able to blind taste and ID the more common gins available in the late 1970s - now with all the different fancy gins around it gets more difficult, but back then there really only were maybe 10 really common gins.
This is not the same thing as a double blind taste test though, If you lined up a row of Rum starting with Myers and that other super cheap crap who’s name I can’t remember through the Bacardi, Morgans, and Sailor Jerry right up to the Pyrat and Kirk & Sweeny I would be able to easily identify them all. That has nothing to do with a taste test that requires the word blind in it.
I like some rum but if you want to do this study you can’t use experts who work in the field, you gotta use the people who are just going to pay for it and drink it.
McGee goes further: his test indicates that tasters cannot tell the difference between good olive oil and cheap corn oil (or any of the other common cooking oils). The only sample that could be differentiated was old, near rancid olive oil.
The $15 bottle tastes just as good in a blind taste test, but I’ve never been to a restaurant where the wine being served was in a blind taste test. And I can’t order wine at a restaurant or buy it at the store purely based on taste; I’m aware of the price, the packaging, maybe of the perception of the wine or of the drinkers of it, and probably other things.
If someone goes to a restaurant, the $50 bottle of wine probably will taste better than the $15, even if that same person would not be able to tell the difference in a blind taste test, because that’s how our brains work. We expect the more expensive one to taste better, so it does. Moe’s story about the Jack Daniels taste test is a good illustration.
Right, but this is where I disagree with Gladwell. In essence one is paying an extra $35 for the experience of, well, paying an extra $35, and thus we perceive the wine as better. But now that I now that there is no discernible difference I will only be annoyed to pay the extra money.
Right. And since vodka is supposed to be tasteless, the difference here is minor. Mind you, yes, I find more expensive single-malts better, but after you get up to say $40 the differences start getting smaller and smaller.
We had a guy that insisted the Coke was it and Pepsi was the devils vile work. At one game we gave him a two liter bottle of Coke- which we had filled with Pepsi. He said nothing. After he drank the whole thing we told him, and of course* then* he said “it tasted weird”.
But yeah, some people can tell the difference. Of those who can, the edge goes to Pepsi. That doesnt mean there arent plenty of Coke fanatics who can tell the difference and do prefer Coke. It just means that a good number cant tell the two apart and dont really prefer the taste of Coke.
I think Gladwell’s point was directed at PepsiCo, not the consumer. In the real world, where consumers choose to buy Pepsi or Coke with their own money, all of those environment and marketing related biases drive choices. Therefore, consumer preferences in blind taste tests aren’t very useful when it comes to making lots of money selling soft drinks. The soda-makers should focus on influencing the consumer in a more realistic environment. Of course, the Pepsi challenge, being a marketing excercise and not any kind of serious research, sidesteps all of this.
I’ll drink Pepsi if it’s the only thing available, but my preference is Coke. I can absolutely tell the difference. I don’t know how to word it exactly, but the bubbles in Pepsi seem bigger?
