Who sees reality clearly? or important lessons of my experiences drawn from blind wine tasting
The aim of the test: the sense of blind wine tasting
My blind wine tasting career started when some of my guests – after reviewing the all the present sort- categorically denied tasting some wines, saying that they do not like that kind of wine at all. I have covered these types with a lid and then presented them to my guests. They usually enjoyed the presented wine and when they were asked to guess the type, they mentioned popular wine types and grape varieties. It was a huge surprise when I uncovered the wine. These games have confronted the guests with the fact that – after all – their revulsion was not against a particular type, but their dislike was due to previous encounters with wines of low quality. For me, besides entertaining the guests, blind tasting is also about finding out who has the skill of good perception, evaluation of wines and who is aware of his own limitations. With other words: who can see the reality clearly. Initially, blind tasting was only a game for me, but after a while it has become a kind of knowledge test experiment and I applied it regularly, consciously and systematically. Blind wine tasting in the cellar doesn’t make a specific, scientific data collection possible; therefore the summation of the experiences is based on an intuitive approach.
The description of experiences
Individual level
Decision-making based on intuitions
Reviews of wine types and vintages are – in my experience – not based on conscious, knowledgeable considerations, but mainly, “according to feeling” experiences, based on past encounters with low-quality wines. The assumption of intuitive decisions is appropriate also because almost nobody states anything about the aspects of their decisions (e.g. northern-southern style, variety characteristic- “swinging” character, warm-cool vintage, reductive-oxidative aging, young-mature state). The final conclusion is not a result of “narrowing it down” – rejecting the less likely options – but everyone tries to tell the “gospel truth”.
Opinions seen as facts
According to my observations, many treat their subjective opinion as objective facts. It is very rare that I hear such cautious wordings like “This wine, I think is …”, “I believe …” “… In my opinion” or “I suppose …”. I think this attitude is a result of not only some kind of laxity or sloppy terminology but it’s indeed noticeable that many people, when stating something, really consider that an unquestionable truth and are not the least aware that their personal opinion is not more than an assumption –which is usually based on ’half-educatedness’ and erroneous observations.
Generalization of fortuitous experiences: prejudices
In my experience, a significant proportion of guests have prejudices concerning wines, as they typically think that if they haven’t tasted good wine of a specific variety – have negative experience and opinion – then the given wine is not good and cannot be good at all. This means that they draw “far-reaching” consequences from their personal and -in a sense – “fortuitous” experience, so – in a sense – they reify the subjective. The exception in these cases doesn’t prove the rule, but on the on the contrary: it disproves (the erroneously established) “rule”.
Fugleman’s self-confidence and obtuseness
Almost every group has “fugleman” kind of member(s), typically senior individuals who make fast and confident decisions. Quick self-confidence, however, is often inversely proportional to effectiveness. It doesn’t really occur that fugleman is reluctant to guess. It isn’t likely either that they stop guessing after some negative feedbacks. Some leaders arrogate a kind of “magic power” to themselves: they think that the result will be what they expect; that reality will align to their desires – but in this respect, reality is “relentless.” Fugleman – after several wrong guesses – usually perceive the limits of their knowledge and realize the problematic nature of their competence.
Having the right senses, or the importance of ’perspicacity’
The majority of people perceive “scatteredly”, inaccurately – with a distorted sense of proportion, in an “approximately” way. In my experience, there are only a few who are able to perceive accurately, correctly, with a good sense of proportion – and they are not necessarily learned interpreters of wine or methodical wine tasters. Such people have a “sense” for correct perception and for processing the sensed information. In other words: there are those who are able to “see the reality clearly”, and there are those who have “blurred vision.” This kind of “incorrect sensing”- just like sense of rhythm is a ’talent’ that –in my experience- can’t be balanced by just learning.
Group level
The behavior of the leading figure in a group
The leading personality is easily recognizable after his behavior, clothing, and his spatial position also typically highlights him. The leader typically occupies a central position: in the middle – or at the upper end of a table. Such person is the “fugleman”: he is the first to guess and he does that very resolutely. As if the speed and determination would be some kind of virtue, or as if the senior person would feel a burden of proof to demonstrate competence in a certain field to “expertise” – but often proves just the opposite.
Individual decision-making and adherence to personal opinion
It is indeed interesting that despite the leader being the fugleman, his opinion is generally not authoritative. According to my observations, in a group of mixed competences, each person individually and independently makes a decision ignoring the others social status, influence, their skills and expertise on a kind of “We are all equal and everyone has the right and freedom of expression” basis. People usually tend to stick to their personal opinions, only rarely changing their opinions.
The lack of well-founded opinions and commonly gathered information
If opinions are very different in a group, then typically there is no battle of words between the members, therefore there is no commonly gathered set of information that could possibly result in a broader, deeper, more correct and uniform opinion. However, when a majority standpoint emerges in a group of friends, the confidence put into friends can be so strong that the ones on the right guess – being the minority – may subsequently change their minds to the wrong standpoint of the majority.
Ignoring the opinion of experts
It can be said that right conclusions can only be drawn by experts, therefore their competency soon comes to light by their constant quality performance. If they are wrong, the error is typically a smaller one, coming from the ignorance of some unique characteristics. It is interesting, however, that in mixed groups – in terms of savvy – almost no one is concerned about being more efficient in order to have the opinion of the “one(s) who see(s) reality more clearly” as a landmark in the future.
The inexactness of the majority
In a mixed group – in terms of savvy – when a majority view is formed, this typically is a confirmation for the team members that they are right. There are groups where friends strive to reach a common decision. During blind tasting it can be observed that facts are not justified by just having more people believing them to be true. The decisions of the not sufficiently informed majority – who also lack competency – are typically incorrect.
The women’s peripheral role in a group
Women are generally better in terms of perception and recognition, but are often uncertain, as they do not dare to express their opinion, and they do not feel themselves sufficiently skillful. Some women join their male counterparts with their opinion, remaining loyal towards their partner, while – on the other hand – it is quite rare that a man accepts a woman’s independent and personal views. Most women are pretty much aware of their own limitations, while the majority of men are not. Men feel free to guess even if they had already repeatedly betted on the wrong. Women are more cautious in this regard, and in a sense, “wiser” than men.
Conclusions and remarks
Self- consciousness – non-consciousness: the significance of logical criteria
During blind tasting the correct result should only be given after ensuring a systematic and consistent reflection with the possession of knowledge and experience, applying logical criteria. Besides the basic structure of the wine, the aromas must also be taken into account. It is indeed possible to make the right decisions intuitively, but by being based on vague, unconscious criteria it is less likely to get accurate results. During the opining, a competent considers a number of options which means that he thinks in terms of probabilities and is able to give reasons during the presentation of his final conclusions. In social life most people typically don’t make conscious decisions after thinking through a set of criteria. The family socialization of the majority is rather spontaneous while loads of manipulative effects direct people to “non-consciousness” and towards the direction of crassitude.
“Sensitivity” – “insensitivity”: the importance of good sense
In my experience, relatively few have really good sense for tasting. ’Good perception’ means not only the good functioning of sensory perception and proper cognitive procession but is a rather complex mixture of talents including gifts of good memory and ability of using creative thinking patterns. These skills can be improved by practicing and learning but there is no equality between people regarding their talents, their room for developing their skills, their level of upgradeability, their motivation and the quantity / quality of their acquired knowledge. I want to emphasize that this is not based on a bias “elitism” from my side, but had been drawn from my extensive personal experience.
Individual – Community approach: the importance of cooperation between people
During blind tasting it can clearly be seen that today’s socialization in the family and at the school is essentially based on an individualistic approach. People usually make independent decisions based on their own subjective experiences while generally ignoring others’ thoughts and experiences – worthy resources that could possibly be useful when making decisions. The collation of different opinions – alongside with aspirations of reaching an alignment – is completely missing – even among old friends. The situation can be described vividly with the following image: people are sitting around a round-shaped table (“equality”, “brotherhood”) and everyone offers an opinion (“freedom”) – and the result is nothing more than a chaotic, fragmented set of information, full of false and distorted, in a sense, “meaningless” opinion.
Majority – minority: the sense of decisions made on majority basis
Based on my blind tasting experience I have concluded that the right decision on a majority basis can only be reached when it is made by experts of broadly similar routine and criteria. The common decision of experts is justified by the fact that this decision-making procedure ensures the elimination of mistakes emerging from subjective perception, interpretation and evaluation.
Self-confidence – “self-restraint”: the recognition of knowledge gaps and the possibility of development
My experience has shown that the majority of guests visiting the cellar have greater self-confidence than self-restraint. Their opinion testifies obtuseness and lack of knowledge, therefore their opinion is simply irrelevant and can –after all- be ignored. This phenomenon may surely be related to the fact that many people think that everyone’s opinion is important. However, this simply isn’t true: someone who doesn’t know the first thing about it should not put a word in that specific topic. This is so logical. I think it should be taught in the family and at school to recognize the limitations and to broaden the ken.
Closing thoughts – Referencing the group-level experiences on the social scene
The democratic decision-making mechanism is based on the assumption that people are equal and the decision of the voters’ majority is automatically correct. According to the assumption a ’right’ decision at electing the decision-makers can be made on a majority basis by mostly uninformed, manipulated layman who are unable to understand the functioning of the system and/or are voting by their personal interests. This assumption is not confirmed by social reality: Many psychopathic individuals- later turning out to be dictators- had come to power through ’democratic’ elections – therefore an extreme effort on equality had made it possible to establish systems based on radical inequality and selfishness. Instead of elections based on manipulations, a selection of conscious criteria based on competency would be a rational and logical solution – from fair-dealing, wise and respectable men.
Yorumlar
Yorum Gönder