QUANTIFICATION
I had dinner last month with a physician that's working on a software program that purports to scientifically correlate brain waves with the effects of mood-altering medications. His theory is that doctors currently proscribe these drugs based on loosey-goosey criteria, not based on a scientifically proven regimen. If he can establish reliable correlations, he believes the basis for prescription of these drugs will become more “scientific.” We wish him good success. Wine making—and tasting—is sort of like that. The people making it are exercising a lot of judgment in what other people will like. And the people drinking it have trouble verbalizing what it is that they like or don't like about many wines. It's not science, it's love. During August two articles appeared in the New York Times that dealt with these issues as they relate to wine. One, “The Emperor of Wine: The New World Order” is a biography of Robert M. Parker, Jr., who is probably the most read and most influential wine critic in the world. Parker initiated the 100 point scale of wine evaluation. The bottom line of the article, as I read it, is that Parker tastes so many wines at a time that from a purely physiological point of view his palate can't possibly hold up during a tasting of as many wines as he tastes at one time. So his expertise is not based on science, but a “unique semi-divine tasting ability.” Do you want to buy wine based on the recommendation of somebody using a “semi-divine” method? Do you invest in the stock market that way? The second article is even more interesting. “The Chemistry of a 90+ Wine” is a review of a California company called “Enologix,” which is the brain child of Leo McCloskey. McCloskey's theory is about the same as the physician I mentioned in the first paragraph. Instead of evaluating a wine by tasting it (a loosey-goosey methodology), he uses scientific instruments like mass spectrometers to measure the chemical compounds in the wines. The results are fed into a proprietary software program. Based on the chemical analysis the program predicts, with great accuracy he says, what the Parker score will be. By testing the grape juice at various stages, the producer can make changes to increase the “Parker score.” When I was a lawyer, in a different lifetime, I represented a very successful computer dating company. The clients filled out an extensive psychological and personal evaluation sheet. The results were fed into a computer, and a computer program matched up likely marriage candidates. I spent a fair amount of time at their office handling legal and tax matters for the company (which had grown quite large). While there I noticed that one of the owners, who I'll refer to as Mrs. Smith, looked at the computer matches, but didn't follow them with any regularity. She met with each client, made her own notes, and did a personal match making. When I asked her why she didn't rely on the computer she explained it as follows: The computer can assimilate a limited amount of information because of the limits we are willing to go to input data. But even the data that is imput doesn't deal with bad breath, sloppy grooming, or lisps. First these items have to be cleared up, she said. Then, she said, there's a certain intuitive element that is the most important of all. I wonder if Mr. McCloskey adds or subtracts anything from his data, based on his intuition. I wonder if Mr. Parker has a checklist of the elements of taste that he reviews as he tastes the wine, or if he just has an overall impression “ahhh, this is s 95.” I wonder if the physician's correlation tables will be accepted by the general psychiatric community. And most of all, I wonder if most wine drinkers care about any of this stuff. Merv Hecht ADDITIONAL ARTICLES |
A TOUCH OF FRANCE IN HAWAII