Who do you think is a better judge ?

[cody]

Who would you think has a better judgment of food.. someone who has a lot of food aversions, or someone who doesn’t have many food aversions ?

[g.t.]

This is philosophical if I don't just fire out some immature messageboarder answer.

'better judge' implies a false premise...right? Cuz there's no objective answer to things that boil down to preferences, and not actual facts of the world. If it's something like which palette would relate to more peoples' preferences, there's a much higher percent chance that the more experienced eater would relate better...but I'm sure there's cases where someone eats any & everything ~ but their palette is dogshit compared to the norm, and a person with aversions...but the stuff they DO actually eat relates to the preferences of the norm.

Then there's breaking down what they're judging. If they're judging specifics like salty/spicy/bland/sweet/medium rare, burnt, and crap like that - I'd take the experienced eater all day because they've got more examples of dishes they're comparing things to - and those are relative relationships.

[Tacky Jones]

from a personal standpoint this fits my brother and I. He's a picky eater, who would survive off fast food and microwaved corndogs(not even warmed in the over, fuckin microwaved). I'll eat pretty much anything. My only hard hard pass is zuchini. My wife is more picky, though not terrible, but if shes on the fence with something that my brother and I have both tried, she will side with his suggestion because he's pickier.

to me personally I'd rather hear from someone who enjoys everything, as opposed to someone who would choose mcdonalds over a filet.

[Golden]

Cody gets my vote

[Apache]

i was a picky eater as a child and majorly grew out of it so i kind of view it as a maturity thing and cant help but look down at picky eaters.

[Bad Dude]

I think what’s missing here is food in general is too broad. Those aversions could only impact certain food genres, so “judges” should only judge in genres where they are experts. Billy ray cyrus shouldn’t be judging hip hop, just like chef Ramsey shouldn’t be judging deep southern florida cracker dishes.

Once everyone gets in the lane they should be in, this would be an easier question to answer, otherwise the judgement will always be surface level shît that doesn’t really benefit anyone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[doctor_wp]

I started reading @g.t.’s answer (but stopped, not because it isn’t good, but because it alluded to the answer immediately)

Because a person eats more [or variety of] foods than another doesn’t make them a better judge.

Volume & diversity of food consumption doesn’t equal better judgment.

Judgment is made up of many psychological components including bias, conditioning, the frontal cortex, how the brain was formed in the womb, and what it has been provided in terms of nutrients and information sense birth.

[doctor_wp]

CAVEAT - in a completely controlled environment, where you take two completely identical species and give them the exact same environment and information while keeping the controlled variable as ‘food variety’ then I believe the specimen that was given more food diversity would be a better judge of food. Which in this case @cody would be correct.

[cody]

I think what’s missing here is food in general is too broad. Those aversions could only impact certain food genres, so “judges” should only judge in genres where they are experts. Billy ray cyrus shouldn’t be judging hip hop, just like chef Ramsey shouldn’t be judging deep southern florida cracker dishes.

Once everyone gets in the lane they should be in, this would be an easier question to answer, otherwise the judgement will always be surface level shît that doesn’t really benefit anyone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But with this logic, an Indian person born in Canada is only allowed to judge Indian and “Canadian” food. Doesn’t make sense.

Taste makers are a thing. Super tasters are a thing. It’s actual science that other people have a better palate than others.

Someone like Gordon Ramsay, who owns like 50 restaurants, graduated culinary school, cooking/tasting/eating since 10yrs old, travelled the world for food, has multiple Michelin stars under his belt, tastes what every part of the world has to offer.. vs a southern person who cooking gumbo in his backyard, hasn’t experienced the world and see how others season, taste how others season, to incorporate and compare to something better to make their own food better - doesn’t have the upper hand in judgement over Gordon.

[cody]

I started reading @g.t.’s answer (but stopped, not because it isn’t good, but because it alluded to the answer immediately)

Because a person eats more [or variety of] foods than another doesn’t make them a better judge.

Volume & diversity of food consumption doesn’t equal better judgment.

Judgment is made up of many psychological components including bias, conditioning, the frontal cortex, how the brain was formed in the womb, and what it has been provided in terms of nutrients and information sense birth.

So you really think someone who has tasted a more variety of foods, and likes a more variety of foods isn’t a better judge than someone who hate this or hates that, or won’t eat this because of that?

Hmm don’t make sense to me