Old News, very old news

This is one of those things, like the fact that TV commercials are louder than the programs, that we have always known, despite the fact that people whose income is involved tell us it's nonsense. Expensive wines are better than cheap wines because ...

.... because they're expensive.

Freakenomics Radio has the info. Here's my favorite quote:

One of these researchers is Robin Goldstein, whose paper detailing more than 6,000 blind tastings reaches the conclusion that “individuals who are unaware of the price do not derive more enjoyment from more expensive wine.”

Then there is the noted Princeton economist (and wine buff) Orley Ashenfelter quoted on the same site about expertise in general:

I mean, S&P, Moody’s, Fitch, these people all rated securities that apparently completely tanked. So there’s obviously something in the demand for expertise, the imprimatur, which is not really about the fact that they do a good job. By the way, those organizations are not transparent either, just as the Wine Spectator isn’t. So there’s some similarity here that I think probably gives us a little insight into things that are much broader than wine and food.

Which explains my contempt for most (not all) "consultants." It's something I learned when I worked for a big computer company.

But, practical use of this new found old news: Buy one really really expensive bottle of wine. Drink it. Preferably just you and perhaps one other. Then lay the bottle on your sideboard in full sight at your next wine party and serve the cheap but good Chilean wine you got at the grocery store.

In a decanter next to the empty bottle.

If my family contained anyone who actually liked good wine I would try it this holiday in that smelly old port city to our south.

Nota bene: Carmen makes objection to that last comment about the infamous port city. Just thought I'd let you know for the record.

Why we are in so much trouble

Experts.

They impress us and we listen to them because ... well... because they are experts. It's called "The Dr Fox Effect," named for an experiment where a man introduced as "an expert" and carrying the title of Dr Fox gave an entertaining, humorous discourse on an obscure math question. The only problem was that the entire talk was absolute nonsense. Needless to say the listeners ate it up and raved about how good the talk was. (btw, did I tell you that I am a Dr? In Medieval History? An expert).

I read that in a column by Nicholas Kristoff in today's NYT that derides "experts" in general and media pundits in particular. Here is my favorite part:

Other studies have confirmed the general sense that expertise is overrated. In one experiment, clinical psychologists did no better than their secretaries in their diagnoses. In another, a white rat in a maze repeatedly beat groups of Yale undergraduates in understanding the optimal way to get food dropped in the maze. The students overanalyzed and saw patterns that didn’t exist, so they were beaten by the rodent.

Well, they were from Yale.

I'd make more of this, but then I would have to analyze it to establish some patterns. Did I tell you I was an expert? With a PhD?

.