Walkers Crisps expose the elusive nature of reality

UK readers have probably seen this advert; International readers may need reminding that our crisps are your potato chips. Regardless of where you are in the world, consider what Walkers Crisps are demonstrating with their latest advertising campaign. They have created three new flavours, none of which is instantly recognisable as the food upon which it is ostensibly based. They then exult in this flavour opacity by selling them “blind”, and asking eaters to guess what the flavours are, in return for a cash prize.

The success of this campaign depends on any one – or a combination of – the following axioms being true:

• Walkers are unable to accurately recreate complex food flavours in crisp format
• Crisp flavours are so divorced from real food flavours that devoid of an active packaging lable nudge, they cannot be recognised as such
• People are hopeless at actively identifying any flavour, relying heavily on explicit prompts in any setting
• Actual flavour doesn’t matter; only the idea of the flavour matters
• (we can take it as read that a somewhat bemused elderly lady speaking slowly to camera is also a necessary but not sufficient factor to crisp marketing success…)

My suspicion is that all the above are true to some extent, but it’s the point about the Idea mattering more than the Actual, that is the most interesting.

Seekers of truth have long debated whether there is a reality separate from human perception. Walkers’ contest demonstrates the impossibility of answering this question. Each entrant submits an answer based on their own perceptions. Walkers determines who is correct by reference to their food scientists’ design brief. But if a majority of people do not identify the flavour as the one Walkers meant their crisps to taste of, is it the taster or Walkers that is wrong?

The extreme Idealist position would be that neither camp is wrong, but rather that there isn’t such a thing as an objectively identifiable food flavour, only a consensus agreement between a large enough mass of people. This circular logic, of course, is what accounts for the longstanding joke that any previously unencountered food “tastes like chicken” (chicken having a sufficiently broad flavour so as to cover a multitude of new tastes). This dependence on perception & cozy consensus also underpins the problem outlined recently at the Oxford Wine Blog, discussing how to fairly rate wines.

What is true in the realm of food & drink applies equally in all fields of knowledge. For instance, there is much debate about the new psychiatric diagnoses being created by the upcoming DSM-V, with the concern (shared by myself) that it will encourage an over-medicalisation of the normal human condition. DSM-V loosens the diagnostic criteria for many existing disorders, and creates fresh ones too. This is a clear boon to the pharmaceutical industry (who will be able to sell into a whole new set of niches), to some blinkered professionals (who believe in their ability to heal everyone, if only they had more power to do so), and to those individuals seeking (consciously or unconsciously) to divest themself of responsibility for their situation and to adopt a sick role where they require treatment instead. Deciding where illness ends and normality begins has always been difficult, and in large part depends on consensus, something recently discussed at the start of a friend’s TEDx talk. The future seems murkier still.

There is a path forward. As individuals, we can try to acknowledge the gossamer-thin nature of reality. The lack of an objectively identifiable truth does not negate the emotional meaning of a subjective one. But crucially, neither does it elevate the subjective into the position of unquestionable fact simply because objectivity is difficult to ensure. Meaning is possible alongside such tolerance, even when Truth is not achievable. And with meaning, comes the potential for happiness.

In other words, Walkers crisps may not have a flavour all can agree upon, but we can still decide whether we like them or not.

The Oxford Course on Wine (via Outre monde)

If you’re interested in learning about wine, this will surely be a great course.

James Flewellen, one of the course organisers and tipped for great things by wine writer Jancis Robinson, writes at The Oxford Wine Blog which is also definitely worth checking out for a simple, no-nonsense approach to appreciating wine.

James Flewellen (author of the Oxford Wine Blog) and I are pleased to announce a new summer school on the appreciation of fine wine, to be held at Exeter College, Oxford between the 11th and 17th of August 2012. Amongst the highlights of the summer school are a focus session on champagne, our own ‘Judgement of Oxford’ in which you will blind taste some of the finest wines from around the world, and a friendly and informal blind tasting match to r … Read More

via Outre monde

Know your Source!

Modern life is an explosion of choice.  The art of modern living is discernment.

We are heuristic creatures, looking at the world not as a continual series of fresh situations, but through the lens of experience. It focuses and distorts information to fit within our pre-existing framework. We stereotype to rapidly understand and navigate the new. Mostly, this works to our benefit, saving us the need to algorithmically process all fresh data as a computer would. Occasionally it is detrimental, when we pre-judge incorrectly. But good or bad, it is still necessary, or we would face analysis paralysis continuously.

To choose correctly therefore requires a good sense of what our baseline – our frame of reference – is. Whether this provides context to the danger of radiation levels at Fukushima, or the political motivations behind airstrikes in Libya, or the most appropriate wine for dinner, a good working knowledge of reliable sources is crucial. That is the art of discernment and selectivity.

It gains internet expression in price comparison aggregator websites, physical embodiment in the  good sommelier at your favourite restaurant, scientific grounding through the process of peer review, and sartorial definition through knowing the talents and limitations of your tailor. More generally, it can be said to arise from insight: the ability to not just to be aware of new data, but to filter it correctly. Insight improves with practice: challenge yourself to actively interpret new situations, and to check your heuristic processes are running correctly by comparing your findings with trusted sources.

There are minor sources for each sphere of life. Taking clothes as an example, I like Ede & Ravenscroft for suits, jackets and trousers, Drakes for ties, and Rayner & Sturges ordered through Sartorial Executive for shirts. But however trusted these sources are, they are nothing but empty textiles without my major source for clothes: an internal image of self that I wish to project outwards. This major source has gone through iterative changes over the years, as it has been exposed to many other minor sources in the form of other people’s attire and the archetypes they embody.

If clothes are an external manifestation of the way we interact with the world, they are a first differential of our inner self: the person that we are, and the person we want to become. With insight and effort, that inner self will also go through a similar process of iterative change as we meet new (hopefully wise) people and explore new concepts. Those are our minor sources, melding together to form a major inner source of identity.

At our best, this is how we learn and grow as people.

Drugged-Out Science

There’s an interesting new study in the Lancet from Professor David Nutt (erstwhile chief UK drugs advisor prior to being sacked last year for disagreeing with the previous administration), which has been publicised as stating that “alcohol is more harmful than heroin”, as evidenced by the pretty-looking graph published across all the usual media outlets:

The detail behind the headline is rather more complex, and illustrates neatly how the general public and the mass media simply don’t understand how to interpret information.

The key thing to understand is how they got to the end point of this graph; what was the methodology used?

The study aims quantify the harm posed by various drug on both users and on wider society (eg through criminal behaviour to acquire funds to access the drugs), and so place each drug on the same unified scale. The methodology they used to do this is Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, something I touched upon in a previous blog entry as being a very powerful method of problem-solving.

In order to perform MCDA, you need to have a panel of people making judgements on a series of pre-determined scenarios. The make-up of the panel therefore is the most important determinant of the results generated. In this case, the panel were the members of the government’s Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs, plus another 2 invited experts.

That makes a total of 25 culturally-homogenous scientists.

However expert these members are in the scientific literature, I would strongly question whether 25 people from a narrow professional group constitutes a broad enough panel to make decisions about overall harm of each drug on society as their definition of harm may not be that which a wider panel might use. Furthermore, since all the members of the panel work together regularly, they are likely to have all developed broadly consistent opinions with each other over time, something which will have been regularly reinforced through mutual agreement.

This “crowd convergence effect” or “groupthink” means that in effect, the panel contains far fewer than 25 different opinions, more likely only 2-3 mildly competing views at most. For all practical purposes, this study is therefore based on two or three people’s personal (if unusually well-informed) opinion. That strikes me as methodological thin ice on which to base public policy.

And that’s without the further problem of considering that the availability and stigma of each drug on the list varies wildly, which complicates ability to determine the actual underlying health and societal effects. For instance, because heroin is illegal, to acquire it automatically requires criminal activity. And because alcohol is legal, it is very easily available , multiplying its effect on society disproportionately. This means that making judgements around the harm is the very essence of a wicked problem, where cause and effect are intertwined to such as extent as to make disentanglement impossible.

In short, while the study has a useful role to play in terms of opening up the discussion for public, people should be very wary of assigning too much power to its findings.

Also in the News…

On a completely different note, below is a short collection of links to some other interesting news stories that grabbed my eye over the last few days, and that I haven’t had the time or inclination to make a full blog entry on:

• Enough changing clocks, let’s just keep BST all year round
• No national drug rationing, just local rationing instead. Better or not? You decide
• Pink is so not your colour, dahling. Only 12 points. Fuschia (16) would be so much better…

The Pleasure of Delayed Gratification

After my last entry lambasting the indefinite procrastination of pleasure, it is worth discussing the importance of delayed gratification. This is the deliberate postponement of satisfaction in order to maximise eventual pleasure, and can apply to many fields, although it was brought to mind today by my intent to open the pictured bottle of Chateau Soutard 1990 over dinner midweek.

Fine wine is a good case study for edification of principal difference between procrastination and delayed gratification. Good wine tends to improve in the bottle over time until it reaches a maturity capable of delivering a peak experience, before gradually fading away. Every wine will have its own moment of maximal pleasure although the exact timing and duration of this window will vary according to the wine, and according to the tastes of the drinker.

Being able to resist uncorking too soon allows one’s desire and aspirations for the first glass to rise. This heightens the pleasure of finally reaching that day, and so should add an extra layer of piquancy to the wine itself. By contrast, the procrastinator will fear to ever uncork the bottle, always wondering if another year is needed before the wine is at its best. Perhaps the bottle is never drunk at all, but even if it is, the procrastinator finds the flavour soured and the fruit long gone.

Decide when to reap the harvest of life, but then act decisively. Delay with purpose, not fear, for the maximum possible pleasure.

Shot of Pauillac, anyone?

It may have taken a long time, but the UK has finally lost its number one position in yet another market.

China is now the world-leading buyer of Bordeaux, overtaking the UK in market value terms for the first time. The Chinese market is now over 90 million Euros, and the producers have adapted by making a number of interesting pairing suggestions for their wines (e.g. St Emilion for pigs’ feet and Margaux for duck tongues). Mind you, the intricacies of pairing may have to take second fiddle to educating the Chinese market on rather more basic issues:

Shaun Rein, head of China Market Research in Shanghai, says many Chinese people are still unfamiliar with the traditional conventions of red wine consumption. “They either put ice cubes in it, or they drink it in shots,” he says.

“I’ve seen people drink $1,000-plus bottles as shots.”

- linked ibid

The rapid growth in the Chinese market has also had a marked effect on prices. I blogged previously on my own humble mid-market en-primeur purchases this year, but at the higher end of the scale prices are soaring, and even my purchases will probably appreciate by the time I receive them.

I would suggest that this speculation is leading to an asset bubble in wine, but the growth in the Chinese market is at least partly based on their rapid structural development – with India probably not be far behind – meaning the bubble is unlikely to burst imminently.

Why I hate menus

I love eating out and I love good food and good wine. What I dislike are the vast majority of restaurant menus. They are a derogation of responsibility on the part of the restaurant. Why? Because typically they substitute choice for quality. It is a false choice because no matter what option you pick, you get served something unpalatable.

What I want when I go to a restaurant is well-prepared tasty food and a reasonably paired glass or two of wine. I want knowledgeable, courteous staff and quiet, convivial surroundings. What I do not want is a menu that runs to multiple pages, with half a dozen specials and a variety of different cuisines. This is not good food, this is the sit-down equivalent of a vending machine.

How can any kitchen possibly expect to maintain quality if they expect staff to cook that kind of menu? The answer is that the food will be heavily pre-prepared, involve little skill in cooking and will be totally lacking in any sense of pride on the part of those cooking the food. This is food by numbers and it adds up to a pretty sickening sum total.

Ideally, I don’t even want to see a menu. I want to be able to trust a restaurant’s staff enough to just be able to walk in, sit down and know I will be served a good quality tasty meal. I will be able to chat to my dining companions without having to bother dealing with the nonsense of trawling a book of random options. If there absolutely must be choice, to cater for those with unusual dietary requirements, let there be 3 choices for each of starter, main and dessert. That’s it, nothing more. Change the choices frequently to account for seasonal produce but only have 3 choices for each at any given time.

In short, don’t make me waste my energy choosing between non-options.

And for those of you thinking this post was actually just about restaurants, I recommend you go back to browsing the menu.

“Good wine ruins the purse…”

“… bad wine ruins the stomach”.

So say the Spanish, and I have to agree.

There’s nothing quite so enjoyable as taking an interest in something utterly superficial. I immersed myself for several hours this weekend deciding what Bordeaux 2009 to buy en primeur. For those that are unaware, en primeur offerings allow one to purchase wine before release, while it is still in barrel. The advantage of this is twofold: firstly, it may be cheaper than at the time of actual release; and secondly, some more in-demand producers may sell all their stock via their en primeur offerings so this is really the only way to access these wines as a consumer.

Some use en primeur buying as a way of investing in wine, as a good vintage from a top producer is likely to appreciate significantly in value over the years. Personally, I like wine too much to use it as an investment in this way and prefer to be able to drink up when the time comes. Of course, for some of these wines, that time may not be for a couple of decades at least, but delayed gratification is good too.

The Wine Society emailed me with details of their 2009 Bordeaux offerings and by all accounts 2009 should be an excellent vintage across the region as a result of an almost perfect climate during the growing season. As a result, prices even en primeur are higher than I would prefer, but this was pretty much inevitable. After some research, I opted to apply for a half-case of Clerc-Milon (their idiosyncratic label is pictured above) and a half-case of Haut-Batailley. Both are Fifth Growths by the 1855 Classification, and from the Pauillac AOC, many wines of which seem to have done especially well this year.

I’m also very tempted to request a half-case of Rauzan-Segla (a Second Growth) too, but it’s expensive enough that I have to think twice about that one. Perhaps I should try to persuade someone else to buy it instead, for as Diogenes the Cynic said: “I like best the wine drunk at the cost of others!”