I think it's more complex than this.
I've little doubt experienced tasters can come to know what they are tasting with some high level of accuracy. The more interesting question is whether the more expensive product is "better" than the cheaper product, considering 'there is no accounting for tastes.'
When you're buying a piece of furniture, let's say a dresser, it's a bit more clear cut. Here's an example:
Let's say you are choosing between a $100 chipboard/cardboard dresser at Kmart or an $800 all real wood dresser with the same dimensions & function.
The real wood dresser is "better" in ways that are demonstrable. It will last much longer, it can be refinished, it will hold a heavier amount of clothes per drawer, the drawer bottoms won't buckle or bend, the drawers will slide as expected, etc. etc. It's objectively better in terms of it's utility. (Plus it carries better signaling value.)
But what if you're trying to choose between two real wood dressers within identical dimensions and materials...but they have different finishing stains with different colors. This is what wine/whisky differences are often about. Which stain is better? And why?
Unless there is a difference in the protection the different stains offer, it's all preference. Value will be dictated by the preferences of the buyer, and those preferences will be driven largely by things like trends, culture, and the maybe the rarity of each stain (which is just signaling if there is no added utility).
It may be, by the way, that whisky A takes 10x the time and effort and money to produce vs. whisky B, so it's much more expensive, but that is no guarantee the taste will actually be preferred on the merits of taste alone. People will say, "Whisky A is MUCH better! They use the best process! I can taste the difference!" But this all takes place in a world where brand preferences are strong partly because of the cognitive failings of human brains, such that people have tricked themselves into wanting things that are actually not as good.
Relatedly, I've had the experience a couple times in the last couple months where I went to a nice restaurant and paid a relatively large amount of money for a meal that I sincerely didn't enjoy as much as I enjoy meals from casual dining joints.
Why do I pay 5-10x the price for a meal I don't enjoy as much?
Mostly signaling. I was on dates, and the stigma attached to a first date at Panera Bread or Panda Express would be too much work to overcome, so I fork out the big bucks to sit in a socially acceptable place and eat socially acceptable food. I bow to convention and signal to my date I'm aware of the norms and capable of participating.
As someone who is very annoyed by what one might call the 'attitude of victimhood', I've come to be persuaded victimhood and privilege are the defining characteristics of any discussion about ethics, and by extension politics. I've done so reluctantly, using objective assessment.
While the manifestations of Wokeism are often clumsy and wrongheaded and outright ridiculous for some of the reasons you cite ('emotional bigotry' makes some sense), the beating heart of the movement seems to have the correct moral intuition that life isn't fair & there are things we can do to correct the most egregious outgrowths of this in order to alleviate suffering & expand flourishing.
For better or worse, I have a lot of dating experience. Some thoughts in this space:
- In online dating scenarios, many women are dating lots of people at once (sometimes even when they say/act like they are not). This explains a lot more ghosting than people realize. For an example: Even if you had an objectively very good & engaging date with somebody, you might be their 10th date that month. Were you the best date they had? If not, even if they actually liked you, it's possible you'll be ghosted, or at least not be given much focused, intentional attention as she carries on text conversations with multiple guys. (i.e. it will feel like she is just not that into you... because you aren't the Top Guy on her Recent Dates Radar.)
- Further context on this point, do some research into just how slanted in favor of women online dating sites/apps are. On average, women are being bombarded with new matches constantly, while men get very little inbound activity. With almost no exceptions, every attractive woman I've discussed the topic with has told me they have (or even showed me) an overflowing selection (inbox/match list) of men.
- One possible moral to this story: Don't take first dating too personally. If you let it get to your ego & emotions, it can destroy your ego & emotions. Have very low expectations on first dates. (This takes practice.) Treat it like a chance to get to know another person, and nothing more. If romantic feelings are to grow, they will do so organically, and not because you are putting effort into manifesting them.
- I suppose it comes down to preference & values, but persuading a woman to go out with you via additional attempts to contact her seems sub-optimal. If you are looking for someone with whom you are authentically drawn to/compatible with, why put extraordinary effort into trying to "get them to like/pay attention to you?" What is gained?
- As a caveat, I think it's important (it's effective, and it's good for your mental health as a dater) to be simple & clear about your interest in a woman at the end of a first date...if you have interest in that woman. Yes, playing hard to get can (and often does) work, but you always run the risk of someone you felt authentically drawn to/compatible with interpreting your game as genuine lack of interest. And as we discussed above, the online dating market is slanted heavily towards woman, so there will be other guys available to her if she thinks you're not interested.
- Further on this point, again it comes down to preference & values, but running a 'playing hard to get' game on a woman seems suboptimal. If you are looking for someone with whom you are authentically drawn to/compatible with, why set up these hoops or create a culture of deception within the relationship?
- As a caveat to this caveat, while playing hard to get is suboptimal (and may be a risky move for men in this dating market anyway), it is also a risk to be overly eager. It's unattractive for reasons that should be clear to the average user here, so I won't elaborate. It's best, in my experience, to just be simple & clear, smile, and say something like: "I had a great time & I'd sincerely like to see you again." If you communicate this clearly in person, it will help clear up any ambiguity in efforts to make a 2nd date. If, after you made it clear in person, she then doesn't respond when you ask for a second date later via text or phone call, move on.
- And one other consideration (that I mean genuinely, but is on the PUA fringes): Being clear & simple about your interest (vs. playing hard to get) may actually be a more effective seduction tactic in our culture. Essentially, you are admitting vulnerability, which is a form of courage & evidence of maturity. It communicates authenticity, which is refreshing when experienced in the wild. You are saying, essentially, "I'm going to show you my cards here, because I don't want to 'play games' anyway. I'm dating to find someone I'm authentically drawn to/compatible with, and though I have limited data 'cuz we've only been out once, I like you & I think it's worth investigating this more."
- One exercise that may be helpful is thinking back to when someone you'd gone out with clearly liked you, but you didn't have as strong a reciprocal romantic interest in them. What did it make you feel towards them when they were more persistent? Like texting you often and trying to get you to go out again? Did it increase whatever romantic interest you had? Or decrease it? In my experience, persistence decreases my interest in someone who I'm "on the fence" about.
fozz
2yr ago
This strikes me as a weak moral argument.
There isn't any good ethical basis for privileging one human being over another based on their proximity—genetically or geographically—to you. Of course there is a biological basis for this, and it may be practically impossible for most people to overcome this bias. But that doesn't really have any effect on the ethical math.
You just have strong preferences that run counter to ethical concerns.
Better to focus positive efforts on the things close by, to which I am already bound. As for those things far away, the most effective thing I can contribute is a general promise to treat fairly and virtuously with strangers when they come into my life.
This is false.
You could, right now, give money directly to impoverished people across the globe to save/transform their lives.
If you want to participate in morality, you are just as ethically bound to them, you just don't feel it.
I take your point about some whisky being orders of magnitude more time-consuming & expensive to produce, but that's part of my point.
Some products may advertise being "handmade!", and it takes 10x more time & effort to make them, but a machine actually does a better job of producing that product. People will still often pay more for the handmade product if that characteristic is used as a selling point, because brand recognition and perceived value are examples of how the human brain is easily hacked. People have clustered together notions of "quality" with the concept of "handmade" and reality is hard-pressed to convince them otherwise.
From the essay:
This is truly remarkable data. People come to expect Product A is better than Product B, and that expectation drives their experience...even when they actually think Product B is better when branding is not available.
On signaling: I'd say it's much more influential than we realize. Further, there is a sort of "self-signaling" at play. It's a deeper discussion, but I believe people's choices are a part of a narrative they are telling about themselves, and it contributes to their experienced happiness/satisfaction (Kahneman) as they traverse life. We all want to be the kind of character in the story who "appreciates good whisky" and "spends more for quality." We don't want to be the guy who has undiscriminating tastes.
More options
Context Copy link